(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Dixie Resource Area proposed resource management plan and final environmental impact statement"

BLM LIBRARY 



88058379 




DIXIE RESOURCE AREA 

Proposed Resource Management Plan and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 




TM^^.. 



,rf«*-*:^*^" 



.- -v-r 



/*• 



M 








p,.;..^affla.^..:, Bureau of Land Management 



Cedar City District OfFice 




September 1998 



■-srsiBasS^i^ 




BL^GSO, ST-150A 
^^r^-'/-c^ rPni'-;AL CEMTEB 
^"'"- ' pO. BOX 25^7 
DENVER, COi..OfiADO ^^5 



The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the stewardship of our public lands. It is commit- 
ted to manage, protect, and improve these lands in a manner to serve the needs of the American peo- 
ple for all times. Management is based on the principles of multiple use and the sustained yield of our 
Nation's resources within a framework of environmental and scientific technology. These resources 
include recreation, rangelands, timber, minerals, watershed, fish and wildlife, wilderness, air, and 
scenic, scientific, and cultural values. 



BLM/UT/PT-98/004+1610 




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

DIXIE RESOURCE AREA 

345 E. Riverside Drive 

St. George, Utah 84790 

Phone (435)688-3200 . Fax (435)688-3252 



In reply refer to: 

1600 

(UT-045) 



Dear Reader: 

Enclosed for your review is the Dixie Resource Area's Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (Proposed Plan). The Proposed Plan is a refinement of the Preferred 
Alternative and accompanying environmental analysis contained in the Dixie Resource Area Draft 
Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Draft Plan) that was issued to the 
public in October 1 995. Elements of each of the four alternatives analyzed in the Draft Plan were 
drawn upon to create this new Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan reflects consideration given to pub- 
lic comments, corrections, and rewording for clarification. 

The Proposed Plan is published in a condensed formal and can be used in conjunction with the Draft 
Plan to facilitate review of the initial four alternatives. The description of the affected environment and 
detailed descriptions of alternatives contained in the Draft Plan, as well as some of the appendices, are 
referenced but not reproduced in the Proposed Plan. 

The Proposed Plan shall become final at the end of the 30-day protest period and after the Governor's 
consistency review. Approval shall be withheld on any portion of the Proposed Plan under protest 
until final action has been completed on such protest. The Record of Decision and the Approved 
Resource Management Plan will then be prepared. 

We appreciate the time and effort you have given during your involvement in this process. Your con- 
tinued participation is essential to achieve wise management of public lands and resources in the Dixie 
Resource Area. 



Sincerely, 




Jim Crisp 

Dixie Resource Area Manager 



Visit our website at http://www.bim.gov/utali for information about current Utali BLM environmental documenls 



I 



^3^l^i^(/]'^ 



=f^z<? 



/d: EiD^yJ^i 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA 

Proposed Resource Management Plan and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 



m 






September 1998 



Prepared by: 

United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Utah State Office 

Cedar City District 

Dixie Resource Area 












y^% 












<% 
% 



4> 



Oa 



<&A 



\ 



% 



Approved by; 




C, William Lamb 
State Director, Utah 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA 

Proposed Resource Management Plan and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Draft ( ) Final (X) 

Lead Agency: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 
Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( ) 

Abstract 

This is the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Proposed 
Plan) for the Dixie Resource Area. 

This document responds to public comments received on the Dixie Resource Area Draft Resource 
Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Draft Plan). The Proposed Plan also corrects 
errors in the Draft Plan identified through the public comment process and internal BLM review. The 
Proposed Plan and associated analysis presents a refined and modified version of the Preferred 
Alternative and the accompanying impact analysis contained in the Draft Plan. 

This document is published in condensed form and should be used in conjunction with the Draft Plan, 
which was published in October 1995, to facilitate review. 

For further information on this Proposed Plan, contact Lauren Mermejo, RMPTeam Leader, Bureau of 
Land Management, 345 E. Riverside Drive, Suite 102, St. George, Utah 84790; telephone number 
(435)688-3216. 

Protests to this RMP must be received within 30 days of the date of publication of the Notice of 
Availability by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That notice is published in the Federal 
Register. A news release will also be provided to local newspapers in St. George, Cedar City, Salt Lake 
City, and Kanab, Utah, as well as Mesquite and Las Vegas in Nevada. 



DIXIE RE -SOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

V 



PROTEST PROCEDURES 

The resource management planning process provides for an administrative review to the BLM Director 
if you believe approval of the Dixie Resource Area Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (Proposed Plan) would be in error (See 43 CFR 1510.5-2). Careful 
adherence to the following guidelines will assist you in the preparation of a protest that will assure the 
greatest consideration to your point of view. 

Only those persons or organizations who participated in the scoping or comment period for the 199.5 
Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement planning process leading to this 
Proposed Plan may protest. If our records do not indicate that you had any involvement in any stage 
in the preparation of the Proposed Plan, your protest will be dismissed without any further review. 

A protesting party may raise only those issues which he/she submitted for the record during the plan- 
ning process. New issues raised in the protest period should be directed to the Dixie Resource Area 
Manager for consideration in plan implementation, as a potential plan amendment, or as otherwise 
appropriate. 

The period for filing a plan protest begins with the Environmental Protection Agency publication of the 
Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement containing the Proposed Plan in the 
Federal Register. The protest period extends for 30 days. There is no provision for an extension of 
time. To be considered timely, your protest must be postmarked no later than the last day of the protest 
period. Although not a requirement, we suggest that you send your protest by certified mail, return 
receipt requested. 

Protests must be in writing to: Director, Bureau of Land Management 

Attn: Ms. Brenda Williams, Protests Coordinator 
WO-210/LS-1075 
Department of the Interior 
Washington, DC 20240 

Overnight Mail address is: Director, Bureau of Land Management 

Attn: Ms. Brenda Williams, Protests Coordinator (WO-210) 
1 620 L Street, NW, Rm 1 075 
Washington, DC 20036 
Phone: 202/452-5110 

To expedite consideration, in addition to the original sent by mail or overnight mail, a copy of the 
protest may be sent by: 

FAX to 202/452-51 12; or 

E-mail to bhudgens@wo.blm.gov. 

Protests filed late, or filed with the State Director, or District, Field, or Area Manager shall be rejected 
by the Washington Office. To be considered complete, your protest must contain, at a minimum, the 
following information: 

1 . The name, mailing address, telephone number, and interest of the person filing the protest. 

2. A statement of the issue or issues being raised. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

vii 



Identification of the part or parts of the Proposed Plan being protested. To the extent possible, this 
ould be done by reference to specific pages, paragraphs, sections, tables, maps, etc., included in the 

("I ri-nont 



4. A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that you submitted during the planning 
process, or a reference to the date the issue or issues were discussed by you for the record. 

5. A concise statement explaining why the Utah BLM State Director's proposed decision is believed to 
be incorrect. This is a critical part of your protest. Take care to document all relevant facts. As much 
as possible, reference or cite the planning documents, environmental analysis documents, or available 
planning records (i.e., meeting minutes or summaries, correspondence). A protest which merely 
expresses disagreement with the proposed decision, without any data, will not provide us with the ben- 
efit of your information and insight. In this case, the Director's review will be based on the existing 
analysis and supporting data. 

At the end of the 30-day protest period and after the Governor's consistency review, the Proposed Plan, 
excluding any portions under protest, will become final. Approval will be withheld on any portion of 
the Proposed Plan under protest until final action has been completed on such protest. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

viii 



mirf3r«^tiiiWN!i^riSJM-M^Wi1?Ki?»MW'!^'l^ J— 



^ GGBHBfTS 



Summary Si 

Introduction SI 

Proposed Plan 

Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.1 

The Plan 1.1 

Setting 1.1 

Map 1 . 1 Dixie Resource Area General Location Map 1 .2 

Table 1.1 Land Ownership in Washington County 1 .3 

Purpose and Need for Action 1 .3 

Management Focus 1 .4 

Figure 1.1 USDI/BLM Strategic Coals Framework 1 .4 

Relationship to Other Agency Plans 1 .5 

Collaborative Management 1 .6 

Plan Maintenance, Revision, and Implementation 1.6 

Plan Alternatives 1 .7 

Table 1.2 Summary of Proposed Plan and Draft RMP Alternatives 1 .8 

Maps 

1.2 Land Status 1.13 

Chapter 2 - Proposed Resource Management Plan 2.1 

Plan Development 2.1 

Lands 2.1 

Land Acquisition 2.2 

Land Transfer 2.2 

Easement Acquisitions 2.3 

Table 2-1 Potential Access Easements 2.4 

Rights-of-Way 2.4 

Table 2-2 Proposed and Existing Utility Corridors 2. .5 

Table 2-3 Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas 2.7 

Land Withdrawals and Classifications 2.7 

Table 2-4 Proposed Withdrawals from Mining Location 2.7 

Energy and Mineral Resources 2.7 

Fluid Minerals 2.8 

Table 2-5 Fluid Mineral Leasing Categories 2.8 

Locatable Minerals 2.9 

Mineral Materials 2.9 

Table 2-6 Mineral Materials Sales Designations 2.10 

Transportation 2.10 

Air Quality 2.12 

Soil and Water Resources 2.13 

Soils and Watershed 2.13 

Water Resources 2.15 

Table 2-7 Water-Based Resource Values 2.1 7 

Riparian Resources 2.20 

Vegetation Resources 2.21 

Vegetation Composition 2.22 

Special Status Plant Species 2.23 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

ix 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management 2.24 

Special Status Animal Species 2.25 

Livestock Grazing Management 2.32 

Forestry Management 2.35 

Table 2-8 Fuelwood Harvest Area Designations 2.36 

Recreation 2.37 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas 2.38 

Table 2-9 Mountain Bike Use Designations 2.39 

Special Recreation Management Areas 2.41 

Off-Highway Vehicle Management 2.46 

Table 2-10 Off-Highway Vehicle Use Designations 2.48 

Visual Resource Management 2.51 

Table 2-1 J Visual Resource Management Classes 2.51 

Wilderness Management 2.52 

Table 2-12 Wilderness Study Areas and Wilderness Area in Washington County, Utah . . .2.53 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 2.52 

Hazardous Waste Management 2.55 

Fire Management 2.55 

Special Emphasis Areas 2.57 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 2.57 

Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 2.61 

Native American Coordination 2.70 

Zion National Park Coordination 2.71 

Maps 

2. 1 Potential Land Acquisition and Transfer 2.73 

2.2 Proposed Utility Corridors and Communication Sites 2.74 

2.3 Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion Areas 2.75 

2.4 Proposed Withdrawals 2.76 

2.5 Fluid Minerals 2.77 

2.6 Locatable Minerals Management 2.78 

2.7 Mineral Materials Management 2.79 

2.8 Riparian Areas and Potential Reservoir Sites 2.80 

2.9 Beaver Dam Slope ACEC with Special Management Areas and HCP 

Reserve with Management Zones 2.81 

2.1 Fuelwood Harvest 2.82 

2. 1 7 Mountain Bike Designations 2.83 

2. 12 Special Recreation Management Areas 2.84 

2. 13 Off-Highway Vehicle Designations 2.85 

2. 14 Visual Resource Management 2.86 

2. 15 Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas 2.87 

2.7 6 Eligible and Suitable Wild and Scenic River Segments 2.88 

2.17 Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 2.89 

apter 3 - EBvironmental Consequences 3.1 

Introduction 3.1 

Analysis Assumptions and Guidelines 3.2 

Table 3-1 Disturbance Assumptions 3.2 

Scoping of Issues 3.3 

Issues Analyzed in Detail 3.3 

Issues Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail 3.3 

Proposed Plan Impact Analysis 3.9 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

X 



TABLE OF CONTE NTS 



Reasonable Foreseeable Actions 3.9 

Impacts on Potential Land Use Authorizations 3.10 

Tcible 3-2 Corridors and Identified Conflicts 3.12 

Impacts on Locatable Mineral Exploration and Production 3.14 

Impacts on Water Resources 3.1 6 

Table 3-3 Land Use Restrictions on Critical Sol lAA/atershed Areas 3.17 

Table 3-4 Possible Issues/Conflicts with Potential Reservoir Sites 3.19 

Impacts on Riparian Resources 3.20 

Impacts on Vegetation Resources 3.21 

Impacts on Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management 3.23 

Impacts on Livestock Grazing 3.32 

Impacts on Recreation 3.35 

Impacts on Off-FHighway Vehicle Management 3.39 

Impacts on Scenic Quality 3.41 

Impacts on Wilderness Values 3.43 

Impacts on Special Emphasis Areas 3.43 

Impacts on Socioeconomic Factors 3.51 

Irreversible and/or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 3.58 

Cumulative Impacts 3.59 

Lands 3. 60 

Energy and Mineral Resources 3.61 

Soil and Water Resources 3.61 

Riparian Resources 3.63 

Vegetation Resources 3.63 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat 3.64 

Crazing 3.65 

Recreation 3.66 

Off-Highway Vehicles 3.66 

Visual Resource Management 3.67 

Wilderness Values 3.68 

Wild and Scenic River-Related Values 3.68 

Socioeconomic Factors 3.69 

Chapter 4 - Public Participation 4.1 

Key Coordination Events for the Dixie RMP 4.1 

Planning Consistency 4.4 

Table 4-1 Plan Consistency Review 4.4 

Distribution - List of Agencies and Organizations 4.6 

List of Preparers 4.7 

EIS Availability 4.8 

Chapter 5 - PubUc Comments On Drajft RMP/EIS and Responses 5.1 

Public Comments 5.I 

Table 5-1 Organizations/Individuals Commenting on the Draft RMP 5.1 

Comments and Responses on the Draft RMP 5.20 

Category: Off-Highway Vehicles 5.20 

Category: General (General Comments) 5.25 

Category: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 5.30 

Category: Visual Resource Management 5.31 

Category: Lands 5.32 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

xi 



T A B L E OF CONTENTS 



Category: Wild and Scenic Rivers 5.38 

Category: Riparian Resources 5.48 

Category: Range Management 5.49 

Category; Wilderness 5.50 

Category: Water 5.51 

Table 5.2 Reservoir Sites Not Considered or Not Carried Forward into tlie Dixie RMP . .5.55 

Category: Air 5.58 

Category: Recreation 5.59 

Category: T&E Species 5.60 

Category: Habitat Conservation Plan 5.5.3 

Category: Minerals 5.64 

Category: Soils 5.65 

Category: Socioeconomic Factors 5.66 

Category: Fire 5.65 



Appendix 1 - Standard Procedures Applied to Surface Disturbing Activities 



.A1.1 



Appendix 2 - Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations A2.1 

Table A2-1 No Surface Occupancy Stipulations A2.4 

Table A2-2 Conditional Surface Use Stipulations A2.8 

Table A2-3 Timing Limitation Stipulations A2.10 

Table A2-4 Lease Notices A2.1 4 

Appendix 3 -Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Grazing Management for BLM Lands in Utah A3.1 

Appendix 4 -Threatened and Endangered Listed Species, 

Candidate Species, and Nonlisted Sensitive Species A4.1 

Appendix 5 -Grazing Summary Table, 1998 A5.1 

Appendix 6 - Visual Resource Class Objectives A6.1 

Appendix 7 - A Summary of Eligibility and Tentative Classification Determinations 

for Rivers in the Dixie Resource Area A7.1 

Table A7-1 Documentation of Eligibility: Free-Flowing Rivers Considered . . . .A7.5 
Table A7-2 Documentation of Eligibility: Outstandingly Remarkable Values . . .A7.8 
Table A7-3 Documentation of Eligibility: Tentative Classification A7.14 

Appendix 8 - Dixie Resource Area Wild and Scenic Rivers Suitability Evaluation Report A8.1 

Table A8-1 Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers A8.32 

Appendix 9 - Management of Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers A9.1 

Proposed Plan References Ri 

Errata Pertaining to the Draft RMP/EIS El 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

xii 



tia::Jli 



Siiffiiii^iK^^iKiiiraJ^liliii^iiSiii^iii 



mm 






siii^iiiiHiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^ii^iiiiii 



Introduction 

The Dixie Resource Area Proposed Resource 
Management Plan and Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (Proposed Plan) will establish 
land use allocations and management guide- 
lines for Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
administered land in the Dixie Resource Area. 
This Proposed Plan has been prepared in accor- 
dance with BLM planning regulations issued 
under authority of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act (FLPMA) and written in accor- 
dance with the Council for Environmental 
Quality regulations issued under the authority of 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The Dixie Resource Area is located in the scenic 
southwestern portion of Utah and falls almosl 
completely within Washington County. 
Approximately 40 percent, or 629,000 acres, of 
ihe county is made up of public lands adminis- 
tered by BLM. In addition, the resource area 
manages approximately 46,990 acres of subsur- 
face federal mineral estate within the county. 

in October 1995, the Draft Dixie Resource Area 
Resource Management Plan and Environmental 
Impact Statement (Draft RMP/EIS) was released 
for public review. The comment period for this 
document was from October 27, 1995, through 
May 1, 1996. The Draft RMP/EIS provided four 
alternatives with an array of management oppor- 
tunities for public lands in Washington County. 
The land use or resource allocations are summa- 
rized by alternative in Chapter 1, Table 1-2. 
Over 800 comment letters, as well as hundreds 
of oral comments, were received on the Draft 
RMP/EIS. 

This Proposed Plan reflects potential manage- 
ment decisions that have been selected from all 
four alternatives in the Draft RMP. In addition, 
changes to the Proposed Plan have transpired as 
a result of the careful consideration of com- 
ments, concerns, and issues brought forward 
during the Draft RMP/EIS comment and review 



period. The potential decisions in this Proposed 
Plan have been developed from BLM's perspec- 
tive to best meet the needs of local, regional, 
and national interests for public land manage- 
ment. This document is in a condensed Final 
EIS format, and does not include the detailed 
description of the four alternatives or their envi- 
ronmental analyses presented in the Draft RMP 



Proposed Plan 



As a result of rapid urban growth, numerous 
conflicts with sensitive resources on public 
lands have ensued. This Proposed Plan primari- 
ly focuses on the resolution of direct, indirect, 
and cumulative effects from this growth impact 
on the management of public lands in the coun- 
ty and surrounding region. Major issues driving 
potential decisions in the Proposed Plan 
include: 

• Protection of endangered species through 
conformance with the Endangered Species 
Act 

• Availability of desired public lands and 
impacts to local entities as a result of land 
exchanges necessary to facilitate implemen- 
tation of the Washington County HCP 

• Future management of public lands for out- 
door recreation and off-highway vehicle use 

• Availability of public lands for rights-ol'-way 
placement, designated utility corridors, and 
recreation and public purpose act leases to 
accommodate local and regional needs 

• Protection of important resources such as 
riparian habitat, water quality, cultural val- 
ues, and scenic vistas 

" Acknowledgment of scarce potential reser- 
voir sites on public lands warranting federal 
awareness 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



S1 



S U M M A R Y 



» Effects on livestock grazing operations rela- 
tive to land exchanges, sensitive resource 
protection, and implementation of Utah's 
Standards for Rangeland Health and 
Guidelines for Grazing Management 

• Protection of sensitive resources through the 
designation of ten ACECs 

• Evaluation and recommendation of eligible 
and suitable river segments for inclusion 
into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System 

• Consistency with other plans of local, state, 
federal, and tribal governments to the extent 
possible under federal law, regulation, and 
policies 

• Opportunities for collaborative management 
and cooperative management agreements 
with federal and state agencies, local com- 
munities, conservation groups, and other 
interested entities, to facilitate and enhance 
the management of public lands and associ- 
ated resources 

Chapter 1, Introduction, describes the setting of 
the resource area and Washington County. It 
outlines the purpose and need for this planning 
process, the management focus under the 
USDI/BLM Strategic Goals Framework (Figure 
1 .1 ), the relationship to other agency plans, col- 
laborative management goals, and how this 
Plan, when completed, will be maintained, 
revised, and implemented in the future. A com- 
parison table (Table 1-2) summarizes the 
resource allocations described in the four alter- 
natives in the Draft RMP/EIS and the Proposed 
Plan. 

Chapter 2, Proposed Resource Management 
Plan, presents the objectives, decisions, and 
allocations proposed for the management of 
BLM-administered public lands in the Dixie 
Resource Area for the next 20 years and 
beyond. Seventeen maps and 12 tables help 
facilitate an understanding of these decisions 
and allocations. Resources and other values 
represented are: 



• Lands (including potential land acquisition 
and transfer, easement acquisitions, rights- 
of-way, and withdrawals and classifications) 

• Energy and Minerals (including fluid, 
locatable, and mineral materials) 

• Transportation 

• Air Quality 

• Soil and Water (including watersheds) 

• Riparian 

• Vegetation (including vegetation composi- 
tion and special status plant species) 

• Fish and Wildlife Habitat (including special 
status animal species) 

• Livestock Grazing 

• Forestry 

• Recreation (including extensive and special 
recreation management areas) 

• Off-Highway Vehicles 

• Visual Sensitivity 

• Wilderness (including wilderness study 
areas) 

• Cultural and Paleontological 

• Hazardous Wastes 

• Fire 

• Special Emphasis Areas (including Wild and 
Scenic Rivers, proposed Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern, Native American 
coordination, and Zion National Park coor- 
dination) 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



S2 



SUMMARY 



Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences, ana- 
lyzes the environmental impacts of the Proposed 
Plan management decisions presented in 
Chapter 2. Analysis assumptions and guidelines 
that set forth the parameters for completing the 
environmental analysis are presented, followed 
by an overview of issues analyzed in detail and 
issues that were considered but not analyzed in 
detail. The direct and indirect impact analysis 
(short-term and long-term) of the proposed deci- 
sions on resources and other values, including 
socioeconomic factors, is the primary focus of 
this chapter. In addition, a discussion of irre- 
versible and irretrievable commitments of 
resources as a result of the decisions in the Plan 
is addressed. l_astly, this chapter provides a gen- 
eral analysis of the cumulative impacts that 
could result from the Proposed Plan when con- 
sidering past, present, and future actions within 
the county and surrounding region. 

Chapter 4, Public Participation, outlines the key 
coordination events that were held to solicit 
public and agency input during the develop- 
ment of the Proposed Plan. The chapter further 
describes how decisions in the Proposed Plan 
are consistent or not consistent with other 
approved agency plans. A consistency table 
(Table 4-1) is provided to simplify the review. 
Chapter 4 also provides a list of agencies, orga- 
nizations, businesses, and interest groups that 
were sent a copy of the Proposed Plan; a direc- 
tory of persons who helped write and prepare 
the document; and a list of addresses where 
copies of the Proposed Plan will be available for 
inspection and review. 

Chapter 5, Public Comments on Draft RMP/EIS 
and Responses, documents the public com- 
ments received on the Draft RMP and presents 
an accompanying table depicting the 81 7 orga- 
nizations and individuals who provided those 
written comments. For ease of organization 
and understanding, each comment letter was 
assigned a letter number and substantive com- 
ments in each letter were ascribed a category 
and corresponding response number. The rest 
of the chapter responds to the 1 77 comments 
that were extracted from the comment letters. 



The Proposed Plan presents nine appendices to 
facilitate an understanding of the information 
provided throughout the document. 

Appendix 1, Standard Procedures Applied to 
Surface Disturbing Activities, provides standard 
mitigation information for extractive or surface 
disturbing use of public lands. 

Appendix 2, Oil and Cas Leasing Stipulations, 
summarizes the restrictions to be placed on 
leasing categories in the resource area. 

Appendix 3, Standards for Rangeland Health 
and Guidelines for Crazing Management for 
BLM Lands in Utah, presents the overall goals 
for future management of natural resources on 
public lands, and establishes guidelines for graz- 
ing management. 

Appendix 4, Threatened and Endangered Listed 
Species, Candidate Species, and Nonlisted 
Sensitive Species, provides a list of federally list- 
ed threatened, endangered, and candidate 
species in Washington County, as well as state- 
listed sensitive plant and animal species. 

Appendix 5, Grazing Summary Table - 1998, 
summarizes, among other things, the allotments, 
grazing systems, seasons of use, and authorized 
use of the 1 1 grazing allotments in the 
resource area. 

Appendix 6, Visual Resource Class Objectives, 
outlines the objectives for management of visual 
resource classes designated in the Proposed 
Plan for the resource area. 

The last three appendices provide understanding 
and clarification of the wild and scenic rivers 
planning process: 

Appendix 7, A Summary of Eligibility and 
Tentative Classification Determinations for 
Rivers in the Dixie Resource Area, discusses the 
inventory process, free-flowing and outstanding- 
ly remarkable values, and eligibility findings. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



S3 



SUMMARY 



Appendix 8, Dixie Resource Area Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Suitability Evaluation Report, con- 
tains a detailed report that applies the suitability 
criteria to the rivers found potentially eligible for 
inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System. 

Appendix 9, Management of Designated Wild 
and Scenic Rivers, provides an overview of 
potential wild and scenic river management if 
designated by Congress. 



Proposed Plan References cites references that 
have been used in the Proposed Plan in addition 
to those that were cited in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

Errata Pertaining to the Draft RMP/EIS cites 
specific passages, statements, tables, or maps 
where apparent inaccuracies in the Draft 
RMP/EIS are in need of correction. In some 
instances, new information that was provided 
during the comment period has been added to 
the Draft RMP/EIS to clarify or supplement 
inadequate information. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PIAN AND FINAl ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



S4 



Public Lands Are Important to Washington County 

Washington County, Utah, has become a major destination point for visitors, 

retirees, and an increasing number of families relocating for social or economic reasons. 

Growth in the St. George area over the past three decades has brought urban amenities, 

as well as some urban issues, to the rural communities that are located throughout the county. 

Public lands play an important role in how the communities deal with such issues. 




I 



Public Lands Support 
Many Types of 
RightS'of-Way 

Public lands in Washington 

County host a number of 

rights-of-way for electrical 

transmission and distribution lines, 

pipelines, and communication sites 

such as the one pictured to meet 

the needs of expanding 

businesses and communities 

throughout the region. Under this 

Proposed Plan, BLM would 

continue to malce public lands 

available for such uses, subject to 

necessary land use constraints 

and environmental review. 





mmmsaimai'mimmmmegmmmmmms 



The Plan 

This Proposed Resource Management Plan 
(hereafter referred to as the Plan, Proposed Plan, 
or Proposed RMP) sets forth a vision, objectives, 
and land use prescriptions for the management 
of public lands and associated natural resources 
in Washington County, Utah. The lands are 
administered by the U.S. Department of the 
Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 
How the lands are used and managed is of great 
importance to a wide variety of local, regional, 
and national interests and has considerable 
impact on communities, agencies, businesses, 
interest groups, individuals, and others who use 
or depend on the lands. 

Overall direction for the management of public 
lands, including land use planning, is provided 
by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA) of October 21,1 976. The Proposed 
Plan has been prepared with the intent of meet- 
ing the requirements of that Act and associated 
federal regulations including the need for exten- 
sive public and agency consultations. 
Moreover, the Plan attempts to deal honestly 
and comprehensively with the numerous and 
often contentious issues that surround public 
land management in Utah. BLM intends to use 
the goals, prescriptions, and criteria established 
in the Plan to reach beyond the adverse posi- 
tions of various constituencies and find common 
interests on which to build an integrated 
approach to resolving land management issues 
in the county. The approach would rely heavily 
on collaboration with willing partners at the 
local, state, and federal levels and shared deci- 
sionmaking across agency and jurisdictional 
boundaries. In this fashion, BLM would look to 
meet the reasonable needs and expectations of 
affected agencies and the community at large in 
allocating limited resources and promoting the 
long-term sustainability and health of the land. 

Setting 

Washington County is an exceptional place. 
Situated in the southwestern corner of Utah, it 



lies astride the transition between three major 
physiographic provinces including the Colorado 
Plateau, the Great Basin, and the Mojave 
Desert. This unique blend of geologic land- 
forms creates a wealth of varying landscapes, 
open vistas, and spectacular scenery that is rec- 
ognized in national and international sectors. 
Majestic Zion National Park and the beautiful 
Pine Valley Mountains of the Dixie National 
Forest define the eastern and northern bound- 
aries of the county. To the west lie the desert 
valleys and mountains of Nevada, while the 
broad, undeveloped expanses and rugged 
topography of the Arizona Strip lie immediately 
to the south. The geographic setting is depicted 
on Map 1.1, General Location. 

The Virgin River and its many tributaries flow 
through portions of the county and provide the 
lifeblood to the desert and mountain ecosystems 
and human populations that reside therein. 
Countless numbers of wildlife and vegetation 
species, many at the extreme end of their natur- 
al ranges, contribute to a rich biological diversi- 
ty that is otherwise uncommon in parts of the 
arid, intermountain west. Elevations range from 
a low of 2,200 feet at the Arizona border to 
nearly 10,400 feet in the Pine Valley Mountains. 
Average yearly precipitation ranges from a low 
of 7.5 inches in the desert to 35 inches in the 
higher elevations. 

In prehistoric times, lands within Washington 
County were occupied by peoples of various 
Archaic, Anasazi, and Southern Paiute cultures. 
Evidence of these cultures is found in extensive 
archeological remains throughout a major por- 
tion of the county. European settlement first 
occurred in the 1 850s under the direction of 
Brigham Young. Early Mormon settlers in Utah's 
"Dixie" were instructed to establish agricultural 
developments suited to the warm climate in 
order to produce staples such as cotton, sugar, 
grapes, tobacco, figs, almonds, olive oil, and 
other useful articles (Washington County, 1997). 
As a result of this settlement, numerous small 
communities were established and extensive 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



1.1 



CHAPTER 1 



INTRODUCTION 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA 

GENERAL LOCATION MAP 








UTAH 


i 






' 'r 


,_ ^' X 


DIXIE 


L . 


i 

1 -t 


RESOURCE 






AREA 


A«i3; 


J 



ARIZONA 



10 15 20 



25 



MAP 1.1 

30 35 40 Miles 



A 



irrigation works put in place to support the 
growth of farms and agricultural enterprises. 

Today, nearly 80,000 people make Washington 
County their home, while millions of others are 
drawn to it annually for recreation, business, or 
cultural activities. The high quality of life is sus- 
tained by a favorable climate, open space, 
scenic quality, opportunities for outdoor recre- 
ation, and cultural values and amenities associ- 
ated with the area's unique history. These 
attractions, in turn, have led to a significant in- 



migration of retirees and other families moving 
primarily from metropolitan areas outside of the 
county. The resulting population growth in the 
communities of St. George, Washington, and 
Hurricane is creating an urban corridor, that 
along with other expanding rural communities 
along the major transportation routes, make 
Washington County one of the fastest growing 
counties in the western United States. The rapid 
growth poses some challenges as residential, 
commercial, and industrial development is 
diminishing privalely-owned lands used or oth- 



PIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



1.2 



CHAPT E R 



INT R O DUCTIO N 



erwise suitable for agriculture. Not only has 
urbanization impacted agricultural lifestyles, but 
larger populations have increased demand on 
the adjacent state and federally-managed lands 
for products and services including water devel- 
opment, mineral materials, woodland products, 
recreation, and rights-of-way for utilities and 
transportation. 

Most public lands in Washington County are 
managed by ihe BLM's Dixie Resource Area 
office in St. George. About 4,800 acres of pub- 
lic land situated north of the Dixie National 
Forest near Enterprise are managed by BLM's 
Cedar City office and are not addressed in this 
Proposed RMP. Land ownership in the county is 
depicted in Table 1 -1 and shown on Map 1 .2 
(some recent changes in ownership are not 
reflected on the map). Privately-owned lands 
are concentrated primarily around the major 
transportation routes, river corridors, and areas 
suitable for agricultural development. The 
Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians occupies a 
reservation 4 miles west of St. George. Lands 
owned by the State of Utah include three state 
parks and a significant amount of acreage man- 
aged by the Utah School and Institutional Trust 
Lands Administration. The latter properties are 
intermingled with public lands throughout the 
county with consolidated blocks adjacent to the 
urban areas of Washington and St. George to 
take advantage of anticipated growth and 
opportunities for economic return. 



TABLE 1-1 • Land Own 
County 


2rship in Wash 


ington 


MANAGER 


ACREAGE 


PERCENT 


Bureau of Land 
Management 


629,005 


40 


USDA Forest Service 


425,285 


27 


National Parl< Service 


143,605 


9 


Bureau of Indian Affairs 


27,890 


2 


State of Utah 


101,040 


6 


Private Lands 


255,060 


16 


Total 


1,581,885 


100 



Lands managed by federal agencies in the Dixie 
National Forest, Zion National Park, and BLM's 
Dixie Resource Area dominate the land owner- 
ship pattern and, by virtue of their location and 
extent, exert considerable influence on the eco- 
nomic, ecologic, and cultural health of the 
county. Local residents and municipalities rely 
heavily on public lands, in particular, for access, 
utility corridors, water development, mineral 
and forest products, recreation, and livestock 
grazing. The intermingled nature of the public, 
state, and private lands increases the importance 
of continued access to public lands for resi- 
dents, agency personnel, and users dependent 
on them for their livelihoods, leisure activities, 
and the orderly conduct of business. It is also 
recognized that the health of the local economy 
and maintenance of the quality of life is depen- 
dent in large part on the health of the land 
including clean air and water and the mainte- 
nance of healthy wildlife populations and natur- 
al systems which contribute to the beauty, diver- 
sity, and overall desirability of the region (Utah 
Governor's Rural Partnerships Office, 1997). 

Purpose and Need for Action 

Since 1 981 , management of public lands 
throughout most of Washington County has 
been guided by BLM's Virgin River Management 
Framework Plan (MFP). Since that time, popula- 
tion growth, public land transfers, new water 
demands, increased pressure for outdoor recre- 
ation and use of public land resources, and con- 
flicts with threatened or endangered species 
have created land use issues which exceed the 
vision and scope of the MFP. In addition, local, 
state, and multicounty agencies have prepared 
or revised land use plans of their own which 
have created a need for expanded federal col- 
laboration to address issues which cross agency 
jurisdictions. Section 202 of FLPMA requires 
the Secretary of the Interior to develop, main- 
tain, and revise land use plans that provide for 
the use of public lands. Among other things, 
the plans are to use the principles of multiple 
use and sustained yield, integrate consideration 
of physical, biological, and economic sciences, 
give priority to designation and protection of 
areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), 
and consider present and future uses of the 
lands. The same section requires the Secretary 
to coordinate such plans with the plans and pro- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



1.3 



C H A P T E R 1 



I N T R O D U C T I O N 



grams of affected local, state, and federal 
agencies and Indian tribes. 

The Dixie Resource Management Plan is being 
prepared to fulfill the planning requirements of 
FLPMA and to provide a vision and direction for 
future public land management in Washington 
County. The planning process used is intended 
to provide a means for the public and affected 
agencies to provide information and express 
their views on the numerous issues addressed in 
the Plan. Upon approval and publication of the 
Record of Decision, the Dixie Resource 
Management Plan would supplant the Virgin 
River Management Framework Plan and provide 
management direction for public lands in 
Washington County. 

Management Focus 

On September 30, 1997, the Secretary of the 
Interior approved and forwarded to Congress a 
Strategic Plan for the management of public 
lands administered by BLM. In approving the 
document, the Secretary considered the views 
of the states and their political subdivisions as 
well as the public at large. The Strategic Plan 
ratifies and builds upon BLM's mission, which is 
to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity 
of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of 



present and future generations. The Strategic 
Plan recognizes that a growing and increasingly 
urban population is placing new demands on 
public lands. Such demands — coupled with 
growing concern over the health of the environ- 
ment, new federal mandates, and scientific and 
technological advances affecting natural 
resource management — are creating profound 
challenges for BLM. The Strategic Plan 
describes these challenges and how BLM 
intends to address them. Among other things, 
the Strategic Plan sets general and outcome- 
based goals for the agency and describes how 
these goals would be achieved. The goals are 
depicted in Figure 1-1. 

Overall management of public lands within 
Washington County will be guided by the 
Strategic Plan as supplemented by the approved 
decisions of this Proposed RMP. Land use pre- 
scriptions and commitments described later in 
this document would be implemented and eval- 
uated to determine how well they achieve the 
strategic goals. To the extent practical, BLM 
would also seek to integrate these goals with the 
compatible goals of local, state, and tribal gov- 
ernments and other federal agencies with a 
stake in the management of public lands. 
Promoting collaborative land and resource 



MISSION 

Sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands 

for the use and enjoyment of present and future gernerations 



Serve current and 
future publics 



F'lxjvirie n[:)portunrlics 
_ for environmentally 
sound recreation and 
commercial activities 



Preserve nalLir.-iI .md 
cultural heritage 



Reduce threats to 
public health, safely, 
and property 



Improve pufilic land, 
resource, and title 
information 



Provide economic and 
technical assistance 



Restore and maintain 
the health of the land 




- 






Fsial:)lish ond implement 
managcmcnl standards 
■ind guidelines 








- 


Idenlify resources al ri;>k 










- 


Restore public kinds to 
healthy conditions 



x 



Promote collaborative 

land and resource 

management 



Improve understanding 
of environmcnlal, social, 
and economic conditions 
and trend.s 



Promote community- 
hased planning 



Expand partnerships to 
implcmeni on-t he-ground 
activities 



X 



Improve business 
practices and human 
resource management 



Improve business 
systems 



I m [Trove accoiinlalillily 
and performance 



Deliver quality service 
lo customers 



Maintain a trained, 
diversified, and 
motivated workforce 



FIGURE 1-1 • USDI/BLM Strategic Goals Framework (Adapted from USDl BLM Strategic Plan, 
September 1 997) 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



1.4 



CHAPTER 1 



INTRODUCTION 



management with other agencies and interested 
parties would be employed as an essential tool 
in restoring and maintaining the health of the 
land across jurisdictional boundaries. In serving 
current and future publics, BLM would focus on 
improving its business practices and human 
resource management so as to increase efficien- 
cy, reduce costs, and improve the quality of 
products and services provided to the public. 

During the formative stages of this Proposed 
Plan, the major issues driving plan development 
centered around how to meet public needs for 
recreation and water storage and how best to 
manage natural resources on the public lands in 
the face of unprecedented urban growth and 
human-caused impacts. While the issues 
remain valid, additional components of these 
issues have emerged as needing special man- 
agement focus in order to resolve pressing con- 
flicts and preserve desirable options for the long 
term. Chief among the emerging areas of con- 
cern are the following: 

• management of lands and resources 
appurtenant to and, in many cases, 
dependent upon the Virgin River and 
major tributaries; 

• preservation of habitats for plants and ani- 
mals listed, proposed for listing, or being 
studied for possible listing under the 
Endangered Species Act; and 

• finding common ground and achieving 
consistency with the plans of affected 
local, state, and tribal governments and 
other federal agencies in resolving con- 
flicts, meeting public needs, and main- 
taining healthy environments where more 
than one jurisdiction is involved. 

The above issues are highly interrelated and 
touch upon a majority of the elements in the 
fabric of social, economic, and ecologic life in 
Washington County. Success in resolving con- 
flicts related to any of the above issues will 
require a significant commitment from a variety 
of sources including government agencies al 
multiple levels, the private sector, and interested 
organizations. Over the past several years, 
numerous partnerships have been established 



with active BLM participation to address issues 
of importance affecting a wide spectrum of 
interests in the county. The partnerships include 
efforts such as the Washington County Habitat 
Conservation Plan for preservation of the desert 
tortoise and related desert ecosystems, the Virgin 
River Management Plan, the proposed Virgin 
River Basin Integrated Resource Management 
and Recovery Program, the Santa Clara River 
Reserve, the Virgin Falls Park Initiative, the 
Grafton Heritage Partnership, the Three Rivers 
Trails Project, and the Virgin River Focus Area 
Plan. In order to achieve many of the strategic 
goals depicted previously and the resource 
objectives defined later in this Proposed Plan, 
BLM would continue to promote and support 
such partnerships. 

Relationship to Other Agency Plans 

Local, state, and other federal agencies and 
Indian tribes in the immediate region routinely 
prepare plans that establish goals and direction 
for land use, economic development, or 
resource management within their jurisdictions. 
Many of these plans bear directly on or are sig- 
nificantly affected by BLM plans for managing 
public lands within the Dixie Resource Area. 
Under this Proposed RMP BLM would collabo- 
rate with such agencies and tribes on planning 
implementation and achieving consistency with 
other approved plans. Moreover, BLM would 
pursue integration of such plans to the extent 
that they are determined consistent with applic- 
able federal laws, regulations, and policies. The 
principles of community-based planning would 
be employed where timing, mutual interest, and 
the availability of resources were appropriate to 
address economic, ecologic, and land use issues 
of concern. The following list of plans relate to 
the management of lands in or around this 
resource area and would be given full consider- 
ation as land use decisions are made. 

• Washington County General Plan 

• Coordination Plan for Washington County's 
Urbanizing Region 

• Washington County Habitat Conservation 
Plan 

• General Plans of Incorporated Municipalities 
in Washington County 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



1.5 



CHAPTER 



INTRODUCTION 



• Virgin River Management Plan 

• Snow Canyon State Park Resource 
Management Plan 

• State of Utah Plans Relating to Water 
Management, Water Quality, Nonpoint 
Source Pollution, Watershed Management, 
and Air Quality 

• Utah's State Comprehensive Outdoor 
Recreation Plan 

• Utah Regional Plans for Game and 
Non-Game Wildlife Management 

• Utah Regional Transportation Plans 

• Zion National Park General Management Plan 

• Dixie National Forest Land and Resource 
Management Plan 

• Resource Management Plans for BLM's 
Arizona Strip, Cedar City, Kanab, Las Vegas, 
and Ely Field Offices 

Collaborative Management 

BLM recognizes that social, economic, and 
environmental issues cross land ownership lines 
and that extensive cooperation at the planning 
stage and beyond is needed to actively address 
issues of mutual concern. It is also recognized 
that resource and land use demands will likely 
exceed BLM's ability to effectively respond to 
all issues currently before the agency in 
Washington County and those which will arise 
in the future. Consequently, under this 
Proposed Plan, BLM would seek to: 

• form innovative partnerships with local 
and state governments, Indian tribes, 
qualified organizations, and adjacent fed- 
eral agencies to manage lands or pro- 
grams for mutual benefit consistent with 
the goals and objectives of this RMP; 

• work with communities, stale agencies, 
and interested organizations, in seeking 
nontraditional sources of funding includ- 
ing challenge cost-share programs, grants, 
and contributions-in-kind to support spe- 
cific projects needed to achieve plan 
objectives; 



• place greater emphasis, where appropri- 
ate, on contracting out to the private sec- 
tor, nonprofit organizations, academic 
institutions, or local and state agencies to 
accomplish essential studies, monitoring, 
or project developments; and 

• increase the use of citizen and organiza- 
tional volunteers to provide greater moni- 
toring of resource conditions under site- 
steward programs and to complete on- 
the-ground developments for resource 
management and human use and enjoy- 
ment. 

Moreover, where it is found mutually advanta- 
geous, BLM would enter into cooperative agree- 
ments or memorandums of understanding with 
federal, state, local, tribal, and private entities to 
manage lands or programs consistent with the 
goals and objectives of this RMP. Such agree- 
ments could provide for the sharing of human or 
material resources, the management of specific 
tracts of lands for specific purposes, or the 
adjustment of management responsibilities on 
prescribed lands to eliminate redundancy and 
reduce costs. BLM would also encourage the 
participation of land trusts and similar organiza- 
tions in facilitating land exchanges or acquisi- 
tions that achieve planning objectives. 
Nonprofit associations, citizens, and user groups 
that have adequate resources and expertise 
could enter into cooperative agreements to 
assist in the management of public lands in 
Washington County including, but not limited 
to, resource monitoring, site cleanups, and the 
construction of interpretive facilities, trails, or 
other authorized projects. 

Plan Maintenance, Revision, 
and Implementation 

During the life of this Proposed RMP, BLM 
expects that new information gathered from 
field inventories, other agency studies, resource 
themes from shared interagency databanks, and 
other sources would change baseline data used 
to arrive at proposed land use decisions and 
resource allocations. To the extent such new 
information or actions bear on issues covered in 
the Plan, BLM would integrate the data through 
a process called plan maintenance or updating. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



1.6 



CHAPTER 1 



INTRODUCTION 



Where BLM considers taking or approving 
actions which would alter or not conform to the 
approved decisions of this Plan, BLM would 
prepare a plan amendment and environmental 
study of appropriate scope in making its deter- 
minations and in seeking public comment. The 
RMP must be dynamic over the course of its life 
to respond to the numerous changes that would 
inevitably impact public lands in Washington 
County during that time. Amendments would 
be considered a normal and anticipated part of 
the planning process. Where changes would be 
of a significant magnitude and would affect a 
variety of resource programs, a full or partial 
plan revision would be considered. BLM would 
review the RMP periodically after the record of 
decision was approved to determine whether 
the Plan remained effective in guiding BLM's 
management of lands and resources so as to 
achieve the objectives set forth in this and other 
applicable planning documents. Where it is 
found wholly or partly ineffective, BLM would 
consider adjustments of appropriate scope to 
restore the Plan's effectiveness. 

In implementing the Plan, BLM would focus its 
limited resources at any given time on those 
highest priority issues which BLM determines 
have the greatest significance to the health of 
the public lands involved and the socioeconom- 
ic well-being of local communities dependent 
on them. Less important issues would be 
deferred until priority programs and projects 
were implemented and found to be effective in 
accomplishing their intended purpose. Factors 



that would be used in setting priorities include, 
among other things, 1) legal and administrative 
mandates, 2) the extent to which critical 
resources or opportunities may be lost if action 
is not quickly taken, 3) the presence of commit- 
ted partners willing to share in costs and admin- 
istration, 4) consistency with priority plans and 
programs of local, state, and other federal agen- 
cies, and 5) geographic areas BLM determines 
would result in the greatest return for the time 
and resources applied. 

For many of the actions proposed in this RMP, 
BLM would prepare or collaborate in prepara- 
tion of detailed, site specific plans called activi- 
ty level plans that better define actual projects 
and examine site specific impacts to affected 
resources. Such plans would address specific 
resource issues in prescribed geographic areas 
and would be completed with appropriate pub- 
lic and agency participation and environmental 
analysis. Planning at this level would allow 
BLM to focus on particular land management 
opportunities or problems needing resolution in 
a manner not possible in the broad overview 
provided in this RMR To the extent practical, 
such plans would be integrated with the plans 
of other interested or affected agencies. 

Plan Alternatives 

A comparative summary of the planning alterna- 
tives addressed in the Draft RMP and the 
Proposed Plan presented in this document is 
provided in Table 1-2. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



1.7 



TABLE 1-2 • Summary of Proposed Plan and Draft RMP Alternatives 



RESOURCE 



PROPOSED PLAN 



DRAFT RMP 

ALTERNATIVE A 
(NO ACTION) 



DRAFT RMP 
ALTERNATIVE B 



DRAFT RMP 

ALTERNATIVE C 

(PREFERRED) 



DRAFT RMP 
ALTERNATIVE D 



LANDS 

Land Tenure 
Adjustments 



Pools of land that include: 



Pool of land that includes: 



Pools of land that include: 



Pools of land that include: 



Pools of land that include: 



18,262 acres Disposal, 
RFA of 18,000 acres 



10,554 acres Disposal, 
55 Parcels 



29,280 acres Disposal, 
99 Parcels 



15,001 acres Disposal, 
63 Parcels 



7,220 acres Disposal, 
54 Parcels 



Rights-of-Way 



30,030 acres Acquisition, 
RFA of 18,000 acres 



No specific parcels 
identified for acquisition. 



14,076 acres Acquisition, 
83 Parcels 



32,686 acres Acquisition, 
77 Parcels 



51,890 acres Acquisition, 
104 Parcels 



Subject to Land Adjustment 
Criteria 



Subject to Land Adjustment 
Criteria 



Subject to Land Adjustment 
Criteria 



Subject to Land Adjustment 
Criteria 



Easement 
Acquisition 


1 3 proposed easements 


No easements proposed 


/ proposed easements 


27 proposed easements 


1 2 proposed easements 


Avoidance Areas 


308,689 acres 


156,770 acres 


144,295 acres 


281,525 acres 


230,395 acres 


Exclusion Areas 


2,690 acres 


91,715 acres 


2,690 acres 


16,415 acres 


117,530 acres 



12 proposed utility corridors, 
1-mile wide 



No corridors proposed 
380,520 acres lands 
provided for ROW on case- 
by-case basis, 
IPP preferred corridor 



12 proposed utility corridors, 7 proposed utility corridors, 
1 -mile wide 1 -mile wide 



6 proposed utility corridors, 
1-mile wide 



1 proposed 
transportation route 



1 proposed 
transportation route 



1 proposed 
transportation route 



1 proposed 
transportation route 



1 proposed 
communication site 



1 proposed 
communication site 



1 proposed 
communication site 



proposed pipeline corridors 



Withdrawal and 
Classification 



56,149 acres: 6 areas 
proposed for withdrawal 



125 acres: 3 areas proposed 
for withdrawal 



1 65 acres: 4 areas proposed 29,230 acres; 8 areas pro- 
for withdrawal posed for withdrawal 



185,290 acres: 12 areas pro- 
posed for withdrawal 



R&PP Leases provided where 
justified and not in conflict 
with Plan 



400 acres provided for R&PP 
lease 



s 

n 



> 



TABLE 1-2 (continued) • Summary of Proposed Plan and Draft RMP Alternatives 



RESOURCE 



PROPOSED PLAN 



DRAFT RMP 

ALTERNATIVE A 

(NO ACTION) 



DRAFT RMP 
ALTERNATIVE B 



DRAFT RMP 

ALTERNATIVE C 

(PREFERRED) 



DRAFT RMP 
ALTERNATIVE D 



MINERALS 

Fluid Minerals 



239,059 acres Category 1 


475,640 acres Category 1 


316,035 acres Category 1 


314,535 acres Category 1 


243,470 acres Category 1 


186,225 acres Category 2 


29,310 acres Category 2 


264,960 acres Category 2 


127,090 acres Category 2 


171,690 acres Category 2 


176,895 acres Category 3 


1 6,250 acres Category 3 


33,040 acres Category 3 


1 62,305 acres Category 3 


188,770 acres Category 3 



26,825 acres Category 4 



108,335 acres Category 4 



14,970 acres Category 4 



25,075 acres Category 4 



25,075 acres Category 4 



o 

c 



Locatable 
Minerals 



405,485 acres open 


494,01 acres open 


556,335 acres open 


315,620 acres open 


315,520 acres open 


1 68,495 acres open with 
Plan of Operation 


128,280 acres open with 
Plan of Operation 


55,915 acres open with 
Plan of Operation 


277,955 acres open with 
Plan of Operation 


121,910 acres open with 
Plan of Operation 


41 ,1 69 acres open with 
restrictions 


49,130 acres open with 
restrictions 


49,1 30 acres open with 
restrictions 


48,730 acres open with 
restrictions 


48,725 areas open with 
restrictions 


56,149 acres proposed for 
withdrawal 


125 acres proposed for 
withdrawal 


1 55 acres proposed for 
withdrawal 


29,230 acres proposed for 
withdrawal 


165,290 acres proposed for 

withdrawal 



4,450 acres closed 



4,450 acres closed 



4,450 acres closed 



4,450 acres closed 



4,450 acres closed 



Mineral 
Materials 



345,104 acres open to sales 457,230 acres open to sales 428,370 acres open to sales 325,030 acres open to sales 244,495 acres open to sales 



10 sites open 



10 sites open 



10 sites open 



10 sites open 



1 sites open 



o 
z 



54,775 acres restricted 



126,780 acres restricted 



102,225 acres restricted 



79,410 areas restricted 



1 53,1 50 acres restricted 



255,732 acres closed to sales 91,985 acres closed to sales 145,400 acres closed to sales 271,555 acres closed to sales 278,350 acres closed to sales 



TABLE 1-2 (continued) • Summary of Proposed Plan and Draft RMP Alternatives 



RESOURCE 



PROPOSED PLAN 



DRAFT RMP 

ALTERNATIVE A 

(NO ACTION) 



DRAFT RMP 
ALTERNATIVE B 



DRAFT RMP 

ALTERNATIVE C 

(PREFERRED) 



DRAFT RMP 
ALTERNATIVE D 



WATER RESOURCES 



6 reservoir sites identified, 
RFA of 2 



Reservoir sites analyzed on a 
case-by-case basis 



1 1 reservoir sites identified, 
RFA of 2 



6 reservoir sites identified, 
RFA of 1 



No reservoir sites identified 



LIVESTOCK 
GRAZING 



Eliminate grazing on all or 
portions of 4 allotments 
within the HCP Reserve and 
defer spring grazing on por- 
tions of 3 allotments within 
the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC 



Current livestock grazing 
authorizations would 
continue. 



Eliminate all or portions of 7 
allotments within desert 
tortoise habitat. 



Eliminate all or portions of 7 
allotments and eliminate 
spring grazing in 4 allotments 
within desert tortoise habitat. 



Eliminate all or portions of 1 1 
allotments within desert 
tortoise habitat. 



FORESTRY 1 26,1 92 acres of P)-type open 41 6,260 acres open to PJ 

MANAGEMENT to PJ fuelwood harvest fuelwood harvest 



448,395 acres open to PJ 
fuelwood harvest 



368,1 /5 acres open to PJ 
fuelwood harvest 



350,480 acres open to PJ 
fuelwood harvest 



28,530 acres of PJ-type open 
to PJ fuelwood harvest with 
seasonal restrictions 



34,550 acres open to PJ 
fuelwood harvest, with sea- 
sonal stipulations 



34,550 acres open to PJ fuel- 
wood harvest, with seasonal 
stipulations 



34,550 acres open to PJ fuel- 
wood harvest, with seasonal 
restrictions 



29,735 acres open to PJ fuel- 
wood harvest, with seasonal 
restrictions 



51,530 acres of PJ-type closed 
to PJ fuelwood harvest 



177,195 acres closed to Pj 
fuelwood harvest 



1 45,030 acres closed to Pj 
fuelwood harvest 



226,280 acres closed to PJ 
fuelwood harvest 



248,790 acres closed to PJ 
fuelwood harvest 



500 Christmas Tree permits 
per year 



500 Christmas Tree permits 
per year 



500 Christmas Tree permits 
per year 



500 Christmas Tree permits 
per year 



500 Christmas Tree permits 
per year 



4,095 acres open to post 
cutting 



4,095 acres open to post 
cutting 



4,095 acres open to post 
cutting 



4,095 acres open to post 
cutting 



4,095 acres open to post 
cutting 



500 acre commercial wood 
cutting sale in Potters Peak 
area 



500 acre commercial wood 
cutting sale in Potters Peak 
area 



500 acre commercial wood 
cutting sale in Potters Peak 
area 



500 acre commercial wood 
cutting sale in Potters Peak 
area 



500 acre commercial wood 
cutting sale in Potters Peak 
area 



TABLE 1-2 (continued) » Summary of Proposed Plan and Draft RMP Alternatives 



RESOURCE 



PROPOSED PLAN 



DRAFT RMP 

ALTERNATIVE A 

(NO ACTION) 



DRAFT RMP 
ALTERNATIVE B 



DRAFT RMP 

ALTERNATIVE C 

(PREFERRED) 



DRAFT RMP 
ALTERNATIVE D 



RECREATION 



501,630 acres ERMA 



592,755 acres ERMA 



587,260 acres ERMA 



481,590 acres ERMA 



522,315 acres ERMA 



127,375 acres SRMA: 

- 1 existing, 4 proposed 

- 1 10 mile horse riding trail 
near Red Mountain and 
Sand Mountain 



34,085 acres SRMA: 
- 2 existing 



41,680 acres SRMA: 

- 1 existing, 1 proposed 

- 40-acre day-use recreation 
site developed near La 
Verkin falls 

- 205-acre campground 
developed on Gooseberry 
Mesa 

- 60-mile horse riding trail 
near Red Mountain 



147,415 acres SRMA; 

- 1 existing, 5 proposed 

- 1 10-mile horse riding trail 
near Red Mountain and 
Sand Mountain 



106,690 acres SRMA: 
- 1 existing, 4 proposed 



OFF-HIGHWAY 
VEHICLE USE 
DESIGNATIONS 



89,235 acres open 



496,535 acres open 



331,91 acres open 



2,000 acres open 



No acres open 



335,780 acres open for use 
on existing roads and trails 



95,400 acres open tor use 
on existing roads and trails 



1 08,845 acres open for use 
on existing roads and trails 



338,565 acres open for use 
on existing roads and trails 



248,055 acres open for use 
on existing roads and trails 



121,810 acres with seasonal 
restrictions 



45,545 acres with seasonal 
restrictions 



26,670 acres with seasonal 
restrictions 



1 12,285 acres open for use 
on designated roads and trails 



1,015 acres open for use 

on designated roads and trails 



355 acres open for use on 
designated roads and trails 



32,515 acres open for use on 
designated roads and trails 



1 32,1 95 acres open for use 
on designated roads and trails 



91, /04 acres closed 



36,055 acres closed 



66,085 acres closed 



210,380 acres closed 



222,085 acres closed 



O 



> 

n 



MOUNTAIN BIKE USE 
DESIGNATIONS 



421,852 acres open 



526,3 Id acres open 



626,315 acres open 



478,375 acres open 



t/5,385 acres open 



3,163 acres open for use on 
existing roads and trails 



98,510 acres open for use on 
existing roads and trails 



82,510 acres open for use on 
existing roads and trails 



1 12,285 acres open for use 
on designated roads and trails 



7,510 acres open for use on 
designated roads and trails 



5,430 acres open for use on 
designated roads and trails 



91,704 acres closed 



2,690 acres closed 



2,690 acres closed 



44,51 acres closed 



64,680 acres closed 



TABLE 1-2 (concluded) • Summary of Proposed Plan and Draft RMP Alternatives 



RESOURCE 



PROPOSED PLAN 



DRAFT RMP 

ALTERNATIVE A 

(NO ACTION) 



DRAFT RMP 
ALTERNATIVE B 



DRAFT RMP 

ALTERNATIVE C 

(PREFERRED) 



DRAFT RMP 
ALTERNATIVE D 



VISUAL RESOURCES 



40,877 acres VRM Class I 



2,590 acres VRM Class I 



2,690 acres VRM Class 1 



63,155 acres VRM Class I 



11 7,530 acres VRM Class I 



11 1,407 acres VRM Class II 132,685 acres VRM Class II 1 13,380 acres VRM Class II 136,725 acres VRM Class II 263,585 acres VRM Class II 
417,925 acres VRM Class III 335,355 acres VRM Class III 314,965 acres VRM Class III 352,830 acres VRM Class III 217,575 acres VRM Class III 
58,546 acres VRM Class IV 158,275 acres VRM Class IV 197,970 acres VRM Class IV 76,295 acres VRM Class IV 30,315 acres VRM Class IV 



WILD & SCENIC RIVERS Five of the 1 1 eligible river 

segments (31 .81 miles) would 
be determined suitable and 
would be recommended to 
Congress for designation into 
the NWSRS. 



Suitability determinations 
would not be made on the 10 
eligible river segments (63 
miles). No recommendation 
for designations into the 
NWSRS would be made to 
Congress. 



None of the 10 eligible river 
segments (63 miles) would be 
determined suitable. No rec- 
ommendation for designations 
into the NWSRS would be 
made to Congress. 



Six of the 10 eligible river seg 
ments (50 miles) would be 
determined suitable and 
would be recommended to 
Congress for designation into 
the NWSRS. 



All of the 1 eligible river seg- 
ments (63 miles) would be 
determined suitable and 
would be recommended to 
Congress for designation into 
the NWSRS. 



PROPOSED ACECs 



10 ACECs proposed: 
153,008 acres 



1 1 ACECs identified: 
none proposed 



No ACECs proposed 



1 1 ACECs proposed: 
134,760 acres 



1 1 ACECs proposed: 
152,745 acres 



ya 




R19 W 






Washington G; :^ CPfbr 

Requires Collaborative 



ngered Species 
Effort 




In conjunction with affected municipalities, the Utah DWR, BLM, and the FWS, 

Washington County has estabhshed a Habitat Conservation Plan 

for the protection of endangered species including the threatened desert tortoise. 

The plan established a 61,022-acre reserve north of St. George and Hurricane called 

the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve to provide permanent habitat for listed and sensitive plant 

and animal species. BLM would remain integrally involved in the management of the 

Reserve and in the acquisition of state and private inholdings. 

Collaboration with local communities, schools, user groups, and interested organizations 

will be essential for the Reserve to achieve its objectives. 





'm.4~^ 



,c^ 






f^L^kJ'W'^^ JL'V^«^kJ\>«.4.JLX^«^ JLT JLC4~a.JL< 



**f) 



'^±^JL%^X1.%. 



Plan Development 

In October 1995, BLM published the Draft 
Dixie Resource Area Resource Management 
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Draft 
RMP/EIS). The Draft RMP/EIS considered four 
different alternatives for addressing management 
of public lands in Washington County. 
Alternative A represented the No Action alterna- 
tive or the continuation of present management. 
Alternative B represented a multiple-use 
approach to resource management with an 
emphasis on development and land use pro- 
jects. Alternative C, the preferred alternative, 
represented a multiple-use approach to resource 
management with an emphasis on balancing 
resource development and resource protection. 
Alternative D represented a multiple-use 
approach with an emphasis on preserving bio- 
logical systems and scenic values. 

During a Z-month comment period following 
publication of the Draft RMP/EIS, BLM received 
over 800 letters and hundreds of verbal com- 
ments from local, state, and federal agencies, 
citizens, and organizations. The comments rec- 
ommended changes, corrections, additions, or 
clarifications throughout the draft document. 
After careful consideration of all of the com- 
ments, BLM has prepared the following pro- 
posed resource management plan for the Dixie 
Resource Area. Based on the preferred alterna- 
tive (Alternative C), the Proposed Plan draws 
from Alternatives A, B, and D to respond to 
issues, questions, and recommendations in the 
comments. Clarifications have also been made 
to the text, tables, and maps where needed to 
correct errors or to more effectively convey 
agency intent. Final agency decisions made or 
actions taken outside the purview of this Plan 
since the draft was written and bearing on the 
issues addressed have been integrated into the 
planning prescriptions. Although every effort 
has been made to use the most current and 
accurate data available through BLM's 
Geographic Information System, BLM recog- 
nizes that some mapping and statistical errors 



will likely occur throughout the Plan. As BLM 
is made aware of such errors, it will take action 
to correct them through the plan maintenance 
process. A summary of the alternatives 
addressed in the Draft RMP/EIS and the 
Proposed RMP is included in Table 1-2. 

Lands 

Public lands within Washington County support 
numerous critical resources and uses that are 
essential to the ecologic and economic well- 
being of the county and which have regional or 
national significance. In accordance with 
national policy, BLM would retain lands within 
its administration except where necessary to 
accomplish the objectives described below. 

BLM would transfer lands out of federal owner- 
ship or acquire non-federal lands where needed 
to accomplish important resource management 
goals or to meet essential community needs. 
Based on current BLM policy and the demands 
created by urbanization throughout Washington 
County, it is expected that acres transferred out 
of federal ownership would equal or exceed 
acres of land acquired during the life of this 
Plan. 

In accordance with Department of the Interior 
policy, land exchanges would be the preferred 
method of transferring lands out of federal own- 
ership and, in most instances, for acquiring non- 
federal lands. Exchange allows for better public 
land management by meeting the land, 
resource, or economic needs of all parties to the 
agreement. Exchanges can also minimize the 
outlay of capital or appropriated funds needed 
to complete the transaction. Moreover, public 
lands available for transfer out of federal owner- 
ship in Washington County are critical to the 
success of exchanges needed to satisfy land 
acquisition commitments for the Washington 
County Habitat Conservation Plan and the Utah 
School and Institutional Trust inholdings 
exchange program. Land exchanges involving 
large acreages, multiple parties, or statewide 



PIXIE RESOURCi: AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.1 



CHAPTER 2 » PROPOSED RESOURCE MANA CEMENT 



impacts may be conducted using "pooling" or 
assembled exchange principles to cut costs, 
reduce processing time, and increase net acres 
exchanged in any given transaction. Lease or 
transfer of lands under the Recreation and 
Public Purposes Act would occur where such is 
determined to be the most appropriate method 
for achieving desired public and municipal 
purposes. 

Land ownership changes would be considered 
on lands not specifically identified in the RMP 
for disposal or acquisition if the changes are 
in accordance with resource management 
objectives and other RMP decisions and would 
accomplish one or more of the following 
criteria: 

• Such changes are determined to be in the 
public interest and would accommodate 
the needs of local and state governments, 
including needs for the economy, public 
purposes, and community growth. 

• Such changes result in a net gain of 
important and manageable resources on 
public lands such as crucial wildlife habi- 
tat, significant cultural sites, quality ripari- 
an areas, live water, listed species habitat, 
or areas key to productive ecosystems. 

• Such changes ensure public access to 
lands in areas where access is needed and 
cannot otherwise be obtained. 

• Such changes would promote more effec- 
tive management and meet essential 
resource objectives through land owner- 
ship consolidation. 

• Such changes result in acquisition of 
lands which serve regional or national pri- 
orities identified in applicable policy 
directives. 

If the above criteria are not met, proposed land 
ownership changes outside of designated trans- 
fer areas would not be approved or would 
require a plan amendment. 

Public lands would be managed in accordance 
with applicable city and county zoning restric- 



tions and municipal ordinances to the extent 
such restrictions and ordinances are consistent 
with federal laws, regulations, and policies, and 
with approved decisions of this Plan. 

Land Acquisition 

Under this Plan, BLM would acquire selected 
non-federal lands, with owner consent, for such 
purposes as ensuring public access to key use 
areas, consolidating public ownership of lands 
critical to recovery of species listed under the 
Endangered Species Act, providing essential 
public recreation opportunities, protecting 
important resources such as floodplains, riparian 
areas, wildlife habitat, cultural sites, and wilder- 
ness, and meeting the mutually agreed upon 
objectives of local, state, and federal plans or 
programs. Although most acquisitions would 
occur through exchange, they could also be 
made through purchase, donation, or conserva- 
tion easement. 

Over the life of the Plan, it is expected that BLM 
could acquire up to 18,000 acres of land within 
Washington County. Nearly all of these acres 
would result from BLM's fulfilling its commit- 
ment to acquire available state and private lands 
within the Washington County Habitat 
Conservation Plan (HCP) Reserve and to fulfill 
existing statewide exchange agreements with 
the Utah School and Institutional Trust Land 
Administration to remove trust inholdings from 
within federally reserved areas. A pool of 
30,030 acres of non-federal lands which may 
meet the criteria listed above is shown on Map 
2.1 for potential acquisition as opportunities 
arise to help meet objectives for resource man- 
agement described elsewhere in this Plan. BLM 
would not expect to acquire all of the lands 
contained in the pool due to such constraints as 
other workload commitments, lack of suitable 
exchange lands, insufficient Land and Water 
Conservation Fund appropriations, and inability 
to obtain landowner consent. 

Land Transfer 

Over the life of the Plan, it is expected that up 
to 18,000 acres of public lands could be trans- 
ferred out of public ownership in Washington 
County. Most of these transfers would occur as 
a result of land exchanges needed to complete 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.2 



CHAPTER 2 » PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



acquisition of state and private lands within the 
Washington County HCP Reserve or to support 
the statewide inholdings exchange with the 
Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 
Administration. Generally, public lands within 
the designated transfer areas shown on Map 2.1 
constitute a pool of lands which could be trans- 
ferred through sale, exchange, or lease and con- 
veyance under the Recreation and Public 
Purposes Act or other applicable authority. 
Actual transfer of such lands would be depen- 
dent on further site analysis to identify and 
resolve conflicts with cultural resources, wildlife 
habitats, current or potential land uses, or other 
significant resources. Land transfer areas were 
selected because of their proximity to expand- 
ing communities and transportation corridors, 
expressed interest from state or local govern- 
ments, and/or their potential suitability for pri- 
vate or municipal use. Lands not contained in 
this pool may be transferred (other than under 
land sale authority) if subsequent analysis deter- 
mines that such transfer would meet the land 
transfer criteria established above. During final 
preparation and printing of this Proposed 
Resource Management Plan/Final EIS, several 
parcels of land identified for transfer have left 
federal ownership through exchange. To avoid 
further disruption to the planning process 
through continuous revision of maps, tables, 
and analysis, these recent changes are not 
depicted. 

The State of Utah has designated the section of 
Highway 9 along the Zion Corridor from 
LaVerkin to Zion National Park as a Scenic 
Highway. Generally, federal lands within view 
of this scenic corridor would be retained in pub- 
lic ownership, unless as a result of coordination 
with local, affected communities or government 
agencies, it is determined that transfer of a spe- 
cific tract would be in the public interest and 
serve essential municipal purposes. Land trans- 
fers so proposed should not substantially detract 
from the scenic quality of the corridor. This 
retention policy would not prohibit the pro- 
posed transfer of 240 acres of public lands in or 
near the town of Virgin previously determined to 
meet the above criteria and shown on Map 2.1 . 
Retention policies affecting other resources 
including floodplains, critical habitats, riparian 
areas, livestock grazing stabilization, prime 



recreation lands, and areas of critical environ- 
mental concern (ACECs) are described in greater 
detail in the applicable sections of this Proposed 
Plan. 

Since publication of the Draft RMP, the city of 
Hurricane has approached BLM regarding the 
need for eventual relocation of the existing 
municipal airstrip due to encroaching residential 
development. BLM would coordinate with the 
city in identifying and analyzing potential alter- 
native sites on public land in or near the city. 
BLM would also continue its work with the 
Washington County School District to evaluate 
public lands for critically needed school sites in 
or adjacent to developing areas near St. George, 
Washington, Hurricane, and other communities. 

Under federal law, the State of Utah may exer- 
cise its right to acquire public lands through 
state quantity or other special grants. Such 
lands may or may not be identified for land 
transfer in this RMP. Lands so selected by the 
state and subsequently classified as suitable for 
transfer by BLM in accordance with federal reg- 
ulations would be considered consistent with 
the Plan. 

Resolution of public land trespass would focus 
on removal of structures or facilities, particularly 
those in riparian areas or critical wildlife habi- 
tat. Where removal is not feasible or found to 
be in the public interest, trespass in those areas 
would be settled by exchange for equal or better 
value riparian areas, critical habitat, or lands 
supporting other significant resource values 
identified for acquisition. 

Easement Acquisitions 

Where needed to provide public access to 
important use areas on public lands or to link 
significant public tracts isolated by state or pri- 
vate lands, BLM would seek to obtain ease- 
ments for roads or other access. Easements 
would be acquired only with the landowner's 
consent. Table 2-1 lists desired easement acqui- 
sitions and the resource programs to be benefit- 
ted. Funding constraints and workload 
demands would likely mean that only the most 
critical easements listed would be pursued. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.3 



CHAPTER 2 • PROPOSED 


RESOURCE 


MANAGEMENT 




TABLE 2-1 • Potential Access Easements 


LOCATION 




BENEFITTING ACTIVITY 



Canaan Mountain North - (Springdale West & Smithsonian Butte Quads.) 
T.42 S., R.11 W., sec. 23 & 24 



Recreation 



Canaan Mountain South - (Smithsonian Butte Quad.) 
T.42 S., R.11 W., sec. 36 



Recreation 



Dalton Wash (Administrative only) - (Springdale West & Virgin Quads.) 
T.41 S., R.11 W., sec. « 



Range 



Deep Crccl< - (Kolob Reservoir cSi Cogswell Point Quads.) 

Access is needed from Kolob Reservoir Road at a point approximately in 
the center of the SE 1/4 of sec. 35, 

T.38 S., R.l 1 W., to Volcano Knoll above Deep Creek located in 
sec. 14,1.39 S., R.IO W. 



Recreation 
and Range 



Diamond Valley Gravel Pit Road - (Saddle Mountain Quad.) 
t40S., R.16 W., sec. 34, E1/2E1/2T.40 S., R.16 W., sec. 34, E1/2E1/2 

Gooseberry (Virgin & Springdale West Quads.) 

T42 S., R.11 W., sec. 17, 18, & 20, t42 S., R.12 W., sec. 2, 12, & 13 



Minerals 
and Range 

Recreation 



Hell Hole Pass Road - (Shivwits and West Mtn. Peak Quads) 
T. 42 S., R. 18 W., sec. 16, N1/2NW1/4 & NE1/4SE1/4 



Range and 
Recreation 



.a Verkin Creek North - (Smith Mesa Quad.) 
1.40 S., R.12 W., sec. 18, W1/2E1/2 



Recreation 



La Verkin Creek South - (Smith Mesa Quad.) 
T.40S., R.12 W., sec. 21 & 28 



Recreation 



Land Hill Archaeological sites (Public) 
T.42 S., R.16W., sec. 6 & 7 



Cultural 



Sand Cove - (Veyo Quad.) 

T.40 S., R.l 7 W-, sec. 24, SW1/4SW1/4, sec. 2.S, El/2, sec. 36,E 1/2 

Santa Clara - (Santa Clara Quad.) 

T42 S., R.16 W., sec. 16, SW 1/4NW1/4, NW1/4SW1/4, sec. 17, NE1/4SE1/4 



Range 
Range 



Terry Bench - (Terry Bench Quad.) 
T42 S., R.20 W., sec. 36 



Range 



Rights-of-Way 

Public lands in Washington County, because of 
their location and extent, provide essential 
routes for a variety of rights-of-way needs. 
Private, municipal, industrial, and government 
entities require such authorizations for trans- 
portation routes, uLilities, transmission lines, 
communication sites, and local access. This 
Proposed Plan would continue to make public 



lands available for such purposes where consis- 
tent with planning goals and prescriptions for 
other resources. Where possible, BLM would 
encourage project sponsors to locate new 
rights-of-way in existing or designated utility 
and transportation corridors. Outside of such 
corridors, BLM would define public lands in 
Washington County as 1) generally open to 
new rights-of-way, 2) avoidance areas which 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PIAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.4 



C H A PTER 2 ^ PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



encourage alternate locations, where feasible, 
to reduce adverse environmental or land use 
impacts, or 3) closed to new rights-of-way to 
protect critical resources, scenic values, or des- 
ignated wilderness areas. 

Applications for new rights-of-way on public 
lands would be considered and analyzed on a 
case-by-case basis. Proposals would be 
reviewed for consistency with planning deci- 
sions and evaluated under requirements of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and other 
applicable laws for resource protection. 
Mitigation needed to avoid adverse impacts 
would be integrated into project proposals and, 
where appropriate, alternatives identified to fur- 
ther reduce environmental impacts to lands, 
resources, or adjacent land uses. New utility 
lines and long-distance transmission lines would 
be designed and located so as to reduce visual 
impacts to travelers along 1-15 and visually sen- 
sitive highways in the county. 

All new rights-of-way would be subject to 
applicable standards listed in Appendix 1 for 
surface disturbing activities. Where needed. 



wildlife seasonal use restrictions would apply to 
right-of-way construction. Rights-of-way would 
generally remain open to other public uses that 
do not conflict with the purposes for which the 
rights-of-way are established. 

Utility corridors would be designated to provide 
a preferred location for meeting utility transmis- 
sion and distribution needs. Such corridors 
would generally be 1-mile wide on public lands 
but could vary in width according to topogra- 
phy, surrounding land use, and the need to pro- 
tect adjacent resources. New facilities within 
the Navajo-McCullough corridor would be 
placed north of the existing powerline to reduce 
potential for impacts to resources within adja- 
cent portions of the Beaver Dam Mountains 
Wilderness Area. Utilities within designated 
corridors would be managed under VRM Class 
III guidelines regardless of the surrounding des- 
ignation. Nonetheless, scenic areas traversed by 
the corridors such as the Springdale to LaVerkin 
corridor would continue to carry a Class II des- 
ignation for all other land use activities. 
Proposed and existing utility corridors are 
depicted in Table 2-2 and on Map 2.2. These 



TABLE 2-2 • Proposed and Existing Utility Corridors 



• Navajo McCullough Corridor (existing) - north ot' tine Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness Area boundary. 

• Intermountain Power Project Corridor (existing). 

• Following the route of the Garkane and UP&l. power line from Hildalc to Hurricane. 

• UP&L substation at Dammeron Valley to the Sand Cove Reservoir power plant and from there to Veyo and Central following 
existing line. 

• UP&L substation at Harrisburg Junction lo Hurricane following existing line. 

• La Verkin to Anderson Junction following the route of SR-1 7. 

• Following the route of old Highway 91 across the Beaver Dam slope from the Arizona border to the Shivwits Indian 
Reservation, then from the northern boundary of the Shivwits Indian Reservation to Gunlock Reservoir following the Gunlock 
road. This corridor would be the width of the currently fenced road rights-of-way. 

• Following SR-1 8 Highway from St. George to Veyo. This corridor would be the width of the currently fenced 
road right-of-way. 

» Hurricane south to the Arizona border and over to Hildale. Route would lx)llow the existing road from Hurricane south 
to border and from there to Hildale following the Arizona border. 

• Springdale to La Verkin following the route of the UP&L line. 

• Motoqua to Shivwits Indian Reservation following existing road. 

« 1-15 from beginning of public land to the north to below Harrisburg Junction. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.5 



CHAPTER 2 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEM E N T 



corridors, where applicable, are designed to 
conform to the long range corridor needs estab- 
lished by the utility industry in the Western 
Regional Corridor Study (Western Utility Group, 
1992). They also correlate to the extent possible 
with corridor designations on adjacent public 
lands in Arizona and Nevada and with corridors 
on the adjacent Dixie National Forest. New 
utility construction within the Washington 
County HCP Reserve would continue to be 
guided by protocols established in the HCP 
(Washington County, 1995). 

Although a utility corridor was not carried for- 
ward into this Proposed Plan between the 
municipal water well field below Gunlock to 
the Shivwits Indian Reservation, BLM recognizes 
that rights-of-way for new wells, water pipelines, 
and small distribution lines to service the pump 
houses would be necessary to support essential 
municipal purposes and would continue to 
process applications for such actions on a case- 
by-case basis. Such rights-of-way would be 
considered to be within the scope of this 
Proposed Plan. In not designating a new corri- 
dor, it is BLM's intent to not draw large trans- 
mission facilities or other projects into this area 
that would be incompatible with management 
objectives for the adjacent Santa Clara 
River/Cunlock Area of Critical Environmental 
Concern and other resource values in the imme- 
diate area. 

BLM would continue to work with project spon- 
sors to further identify and analyze a suitable 
route for the Southern Transportation Corridor 
route from Hildale along the Arizona border to 
1-15. The route would include a bypass spur 
that would branch off at the base of the 
Hurricane Cliffs along the existing road and 
connect with State Route 9. These actions 
would be considered within the scope of this 
Plan. BLM would also work with project spon- 
sors to identify and analyze a suitable alignment 
for an extension of the route from 1-1 5 to Old 
U.S. Highway 91 between Santa Clara and 
Ivins. The extension would be analyzed and 
evaluated for conformance with this Proposed 
Plan when a feasibility study is completed and a 
project proposal is submitted. Among other 
things, the route and extensions would allow 
heavy truck and through traffic to bypass con- 



gested urban centers and resolve growing public 
safety issues. 

Scrub Peak would be added to the four existing 
communication sites at West Mountain, Little 
Creek Mountain, South Rockville, and Black 
Ridge north of Toquerville as shown on 
Map 2-2. To the extent practical, new users 
would be required to share site facilities to 
reduce impacts and lessen the need for addi- 
tional sites. Access roads and additional power 
lines would not be approved to the Black Ridge 
site to avoid visible scarring and to maintain 
naturalness on the ridge. 

Since completion of the Draft RMP, the 
Washington County Water Conservancy District 
(WCWCD) filed a right-of-way application with 
affected federal agencies to construct and main- 
tain a pipeline across federal lands to transport 
water from Lake Powell to the proposed Sand 
Hollow Reservoir. One or more proposed route 
alternatives would also affect state, private, and 
Indian lands. The application was received too 
late to consider that portion of the proposed 
right-of-way that would traverse public lands in 
this resource area. A feasibility study for the 
pipeline was published in March 1 995 by the 
WCWCD. However, no detailed environmental 
studies have been completed by affected agen- 
cies and conformance with applicable land use 
plans has yet to be determined. BLM would 
coordinate with project sponsors, Indian tribes, 
and other state and federal agencies in seeing 
that required technical and environmental stud- 
ies are prepared. If the project is not found to 
be in conformance with this Proposed Plan, a 
plan amendment could be considered. 

Rights-of-way avoidance areas, totaling 308,889 
acres, are depicted in Table 2-3 and on Map 
2.3. New rights-of-way would be granted in 
these areas only when feasible alternative routes 
or designated corridors are not available. 
Measures to reduce impacts to affected 
resources would be applied based on site-spe- 
cific analysis. Rights-of-way exclusion areas, 
totaling 2,690 acres, are also depicted in Table 
2-3 and on Map 2.3. New rights-of-way would 
be granted in these areas only when required by 
law or federal court action. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.6 



C H A PTER 2 » PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



TABLE 2-3 • Rights-of-Way Avoidance and 
Exclusion Areas (Subject to Proposed and 
Designated Corridors) 



AVOIDANCE AREAS 



TOTAL ACRES 



Washington County HCP Reserve 

OHV Closed Areas 

OHV Designated Roads & Trails Areas 

Proposed ACECs 

Riparian Areas 

Smithsonian Butte National 
Back Country Byway 
(1/2 mile on each side) 

River segments with a tentative 
classification of Wild, proposed 
as suitable for Congressional 
NWSRS designation 

T&E and Candidate Species Habitat 

VRM Class I and II areas 

Watershed Protection Areas 
(Curly and Frog Hollows) 



308,889 



EXCLUSION AREAS 



TOTAL ACRES 



Beaver Dam Mountains 
Wilderness Area 



2,690 



Land Withdrawals and Classifications 

Land withdrawals are used to transfer jurisdic- 
tion of public lands from BLM to another federal 
agency or to remove the public lands from the 
operation of one or more of the public land and 
mineral laws to protect facilities or special 
resource values. By law, withdrawals are made 
by the Secretary of the Interior or created by an 
act of Congress. Proposed withdrawals from 
mining location, totaling 56,149 acres, are 
depicted in Table 2-4 and on Map 2.4. 
Withdrawals and land classifications that 
become obsolete would be recommended for 
revocation or termination. 

Energy and 
Mineral Resources 

Mineral resources play a limited but important 
economic role on public lands in Washington 
County. Oil and gas potential is low throughout 
most of the area, and leasing opportunities are 



TABLE 2-4 • Proposed Withdrawals From 
Mining Location 

TOTAL ACRES 

Washington County HCP Reserve 

w/Split Estate Lands (45,270 acres) 56,149 

Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce 
Proposed ACEC (4,281 acres) 

Red Bluff Proposed ACEC (6,168 acres) 

Dinosaur Trackway (40 acres) 

Baker Dam Recreation Area (270 acres) 

Red Cliffs Recreation Area 

(120 acres outside of HCP Reserve) 

being curtailed by rapid urbanization and 
expansion of incorporated city limits into areas 
of federal mineral ownership. Economic condi- 
tions have not been favorable for the develop- 
ment of locatable minerals in recent years even 
though moderate to high potential exists on 
nearly half the lands administered by BLM. 
Public lands do, however, provide valuable 
sources of saleable mineral materials in the 
county including sand, gravel, cinders, and dec- 
orative stone. Although increasing encroach- 
ment from urban and rural residential develop- 
ment is diminishing the suitability of present 
and potential sites, it is expected that public 
lands would continue to provide such materials 
to private individuals, construction firms, busi- 
nesses, and state and local agencies. 

Consistent with the need to protect sensitive 
resources at risk from development, BLM's 
objectives would be to (a) continue to provide 
mineral materials needed for community and 
economic purposes through the designation and 
management of materials sites for individual and 
community use, and (b) provide continued 
opportunity for exploration and development 
under the mining and mineral leasing laws by 
leaving public lands open for such purposes 
consistent with and subject to reasonable mea- 
sures allowed by law needed to protect the 
environment. The latter objective is intended to 
support national goals for energy and strategic 
minerals independence and local and state 
goals for economic health and diversity. 



DIxrE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.7 



CHAP T E R 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAG E M E N T 



Fluid Minerals 

BLM would employ four categories for fluid 
mineral leasing to protect natural and human 
resources while providing the maximum oppor- 
tunity for exploration and development. The 
categories are 1) open to leasing with standard 
stipulations, 2) open to leasing with special stip- 
ulations, 3) open to leasing with no surface 
occupancy (NSO), and 4) closed to leasing. 
Leasing categories are proposed so as to apply 
the least restrictive measures to the land needed 
to protect the facilities or resources at risk from 
potential development. By law, all public lands 
within designated wilderness areas, wilderness 
study areas, and incorporated city limits are 
closed to leasing. Categories shown in this 



Proposed Plan for leasing within wilderness 
study areas reflect what stipulations BLM would 
employ should the study areas be released from 
further consideration for wilderness designation. 
Proposed categories for fluid mineral leasing on 
public lands in Washington County are depicted 
in Tabic 2-5 and on Map 2.5. 

Within areas open to leasing with standard or 
special stipulations, sensitive resources needing 
protection from fluid mineral exploration, devel- 
opment, or production activity would be pro- 
tected by applicable standard lease terms and 
the provisions of regulations in Part 3100 of 
Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 
Among other things, the regulations allow the 



TABLE 2-5 • Fluid Mineral Leasing Categories 



CATEGORY 



ACRES 



Open with Standard Stipulation (Category 1) 

Open with Special Stipulations (Category 2) 

Upper Beaver Dam Wash ACEC 

Santa Clara River-Gunlock ACEC 

Severe Erosion Soils 

Curly Hollow/ and Frog Hollow Watersheds 

Navajo Aquifer (High Recharge Area) 

Municipal Watersheds 

Crucial Deer Winter Habitat and Elk Calving Areas 

Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat 

Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat Outside of ACECs 

T&E Plant Habitat Outside of ACECs 

Candidate Plant Species Habitat Outside of ACECs 

Power Site and FERC Withdrawals 

Open with No Surface Occupancy Stipulations (Category 3) 

Washington County HCP Reserve 

OHV Closed Areas 

River Segments with a tentative classification of Wild, proposed as suitable 

for Congressional NWSRS designation 
Riparian Zones 
Red Bluff ACEC 

Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce ACEC 
Canaan Mountain ACEc 
Beaver Dam Wash ACEC 
Lower Virgin River ACEC 
Santa Clara River-Land Hill ACEC 
Red Mountain ACEC 

Red Cliffs and Baker Dam Recreation Areas 

Smithsonian Butte National Backcountry Byway (within 1/2 mile radius) 
Administrative Withdrawals 
Public Water Reserves 
Recreation and Public Purpose Act Leases 

Closed to Fluid Mineral Leasing (Category 4) 

Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness Area 
Lands within Incorporated City Boundaries 



239,059 
186,225 



176,895 



26,826 



DIXIE RES0URC5 AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.8 



CHAPT E R 



P R 



OSED RESOURCE MA NAGEMENT 



authorized officer to move proposed activities 
up to 200 meters or prohibit new surface dis- 
turbing operations up to 60 days in any lease 
year (see 43 CFR 3101.1-2). Federal Onshore 
Oil and Gas Orders and applicable state and 
local regulations also provide extensive resource 
protection. 

Lands where the United States owns the oil and 
gas but does not own the surface estate would 
generally receive the same leasing categories as 
adjacent public lands as determined by the 
BLM's authorized officer. Such split-estate lands 
outside of incorporated city boundaries within 
approved residential subdivisions would be 
placed in category 3 (NSO) to protect such 
developments from impacts associated with oil 
and gas exploration and development activity. 
After the initial categorization, updates would 
only occur at scheduled revisions of the 
resource management plan. 

Detailed descriptions of leasing stipulations and 
lease notices that would be applied to leasing 
exploration, development, and production are 
included in Appendix 2, Oil and Gas Leasing 
Stipulations. These descriptions also explain 
how and when exceptions, modifications, and 
waivers to the stipulations would be approved. 

Exploration, drilling, and production would be 
subject to the operation and reclamation stan- 
dards contained in Appendix 1 for surface dis- 
turbing activities. 

Locatable Minerals 

Public lands in Washington County would 
remain available to mining location under the 
General Mining Act of 1 872 and applicable reg- 
ulations on 615,151 acres. Map 2.6 depicts 
mineral areas that would remain open (405,486 
acres), open with restrictions (41,169 acres), 
and open with a plan of operation (1 68,496 
acres). Restricted areas are those lands where 
mining locations are subject to special require- 
ments of law and regulation as a result of pow- 
ersite withdrawals, public water reserves, and 
split-estate created under the Stockraising 
Homestead Act. 

Areas currently withdrawn from mineral loca- 
tion totaling 4,450 acres would remain with- 



drawn in accordance with applicable law so 
long as the purposes for which the withdrawals 
were put in place remain valid. Where BLM 
determines that any withdrawal is no longer 
needed, it would take action to have such with- 
drawal terminated or revoked. 

New withdrawals from mining location would 
be recommended on 56,149 acres to protect 
developed recreation sites, lands, and critical 
resources within the Washington County HCP 
Reserve, the Dinosaur Trackway, the Fort Pearce 
historic site, and critical habitats for threatened 
and endangered plant species in the Red Bluff 
and Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce ACECs. 
Withdrawals would be put into place only after 
approval by the Secretary of the Interior, and in 
some specific instances, review by both houses 
of Congress. Proposed withdrawals are depict- 
ed in Table 2-4 and on Map 2.4. 

By regulation, mining activity involving greater 
than 5 acres of surface disturbance would 
require a plan of operation. Plans of operation 
would also be required for all mining activities 
regardless of size other than casual use within 
proposed ACECs, areas closed to OHV use, and 
river segments proposed as suitable for addition 
to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Where applicable, surface disturbing activities 
would be subject to the reclamation standards 
listed in Appendix 1 . 

Mineral Materials 
Numerous mineral materials sites have been 
located on public lands in Washington County 
to meet the needs of private landowners, con- 
tractors, and government agencies. Sale of 
materials from these sites would continue until 
depletion occurs on individual sites or the lands 
are transferred out of public ownership. Sites 
may also be closed and restored where needed 
to resolve conflicts associated with emerging 
resource issues or adjacent land uses. New sites 
would be identified and developed from time to 
time as sites are retired or as demand increases. 
Free use of materials would be authorized from 
selected areas for municipal or noncommercial 
purposes. All established sites would be man- 
aged under VRM Class IV objectives. Site recla- 
mation or a reclamation fee would be required 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT I' IAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.9 



CHAPTER 2 « PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



from all users, including those qualifying for free 
use. Reclamation of depleted areas would be 
completed according to governing regulations 
and the standards set in Appendix 1 . 

A total of 345,1 04 acres of land would remain 
open for mineral materials sales on a case-by- 
case basis, subject to additional environmental 
review. Areas to be closed to mineral materials 
sales are depicted in Table 2-6 and on Map 2.7 
and total 265,732 acres. 

Sale or disposal of mineral materials would con- 
tinue to be prohibited on unpatented mining 
claims and would generally not be approved on 
lands encumbered with nonmineral applications 
such as land sales and exchanges where the 
mineral estate would leave federal ownership. 
Additional restrictions would be placed on min- 
eral materials sales in crucial big game habitats, 
split-estate lands, administrative withdrawals, 
powersite classifications, and leases issued 
under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. 
Such restrictions cover 64,775 acres. 

The collection of petrified wood on public lands 
would be limited to 250 pounds per person per 
year for personal use only. No commercial use 



would be permitted to avoid the rapid depletion 
of the resource. 



Transportation 



Public lands in Washington County support a 
network of transportation corridors, paved 
roads, unpaved roads, and trails that serves the 
needs of local residents, public land users, 
recreationists, businesses, agency officials at all 
levels, and millions of travelers that visit or pass 
through the county each year. Use of the road 
network is essential to virtually all economic, 
leisure, and life sustaining activities in the coun- 
ty and bears directly on the health, safety, wel- 
fare, and lifestyles of a large number of people 
and communities in the local region. Interstate 
1 5 provides the major transportation corridor 
connecting Washington County with Las Vegas 
to the southwest and Salt Lake City and other 
destinations to the north. Five designated state 
routes and Old U.S. Highway 91 provide access 
to communities and destination areas through- 
out the county or in the adjacent vicinity. 

Several hundreds of miles of unpaved roads 
serve essential purposes on public lands in the 



TABLE 2-6 • Mineral Materials Sales Designations 



ACRES 



Open 

Restricted 

Crucial Mule Deer Winter Habitat 

Elk Calving Areas 

Split Estate Lands 

Powersite Classifications 

Administrative Withdrawals 

Recreation and Public Purpose Act Leases 

Closed 

Washington County HCP Reserve 

All ACECs (exclusive of the cinder pit on Little Creek Mountain ACEC) 

Baker Dam and Red Cliff Recreation Areas 

OHV Closed Areas (Sec Table 2-10) 

Threatened and Endangered Plant and Animal Species Habilal 

Candidate Plant and Animal Species Habitat 

Riparian Areas 

River segments with a tentative classification of Wild, 

proposed as suitable for Congressional NWSRS designation 
Municipal Watersheds 

Navajo Sandstone Aquifer (High Recharge Area) 
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness Area 
Public Water Reserves 



345,104 

64,775 



265,732 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.10 



CHAPTER 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEM E N T 



county. Included are such needs as access to 
livestock operations, mining properties, utility 
and communication facilities, range and wildlife 
developments, special use areas, recreation 
sites, research areas, monitoring stations, and 
intermingled private and state-owned lands. 
Increasingly, such roads and trails are used for 
touring and general recreation. Portions of over 
800 of these roads and trails have been asserted 
by Washington County under Revised Statute 
(R.S.) 2477. Nothing in this Plan is intended to 
provide evidence bearing on or addressing the 
validity of any R.S. 2477 assertions. Rather, this 
Plan is intended to identify roads as they 
presently exist and to describe the uses that will 
continue under the decisions in this Plan. 

It is BLM's objective to continue to work closely 
with Washington County officials to ensure that 
use and enjoyment of existing roads and trails is 
permitted under safe and prudent conditions 
and that responsibility for maintenance is prop- 
erly defined in road maintenance agreements or 
other appropriate documents. It is also BLM's 
objective to work with municipalities, 
Washington County, the Utah Department of 
Transportation, and other affected parties in 
defining and planning for future transportation 
needs, locating environmentally compatible 
route alternatives, and resolving land use con- 
flicts related to transportation systems where 
public lands are involved. 

BLM would continue to maintain those roads for 
which it holds maintenance responsibility and 
which are deemed essential for access for 
resource management purposes. These include 
358 roads and jeep trails, three of which consti- 
tute collector roads, six of which constitute 
local roads, and the remainder which constitute 
resource access roads. Most of the latter are 
dirt, two-wheel or four-wheel drive, dry weather 
roads or trails. BLM would seek to enter into 
cooperative agreements with other federal and 
non-federal agencies to share limited resources 
and equipment needed for periodic mainte- 
nance so as to eliminate organizational redun- 
dancy and reduce costs to the public. 

BLM would continue to honor existing road 
maintenance agreements with Washington 
County and amend them as needed to reflect 
changing conditions and circumstances. Such 



agreements describe roads by name, class, 
miles, and maintenance responsibility. It is 
expected that Washington County would contin- 
ue to maintain roads so listed where they have 
accepted the responsibility. 

BLM would continue to provide directional 
signing on roads under its jurisdiction in remote 
areas, within the limits of available funding, to 
increase public enjoyment and safety. Where 
needed to facilitate travel across public lands, 
BLM would consider installing cattleguards at 
fencelines on roads having increased levels of 
vehicle use. 

Upon application from Washington County, 
BLM would grant FLPMA Title V rights-of-way in 
perpetuity on existing, uncontested roads assert- 
ed by the county to be highways under R.S. 
2477. Right-of-way width and standards would 
be commensurate with the class and purpose of 
each road. Such rights-of-way would be issued 
without cost to the county. The issuance by 
BLM of a FLPMA Title V right-of-way to the 
county would be conditioned so as not to affect 
county assertions under R.S. 2477. 

Where roads on public lands are determined to 
no longer serve a useful purpose, to constitute a 
public nuisance, or to cause unnecessary envi- 
ronmental harm, BLM would seek to close such 
roads through coordination with applicable 
Washington County or municipal officials. 
Proper exercise of Utah state law and federal 
regulation regarding public notice and hearings 
would be followed in pursuing such closures. 

Once issues related to road jurisdiction under 
R.S. 2477 are resolved, BLM would anticipate 
completing a reinventory of roads on public 
lands within Washington County and updating 
its transportation plan accordingly in collabora- 
tion with representatives of the county and 
affected municipalities. BLM would then evalu- 
ate the need to adjust off-road vehicle manage- 
ment designations through the plan amendment 
process to reflect changes that may have 
occurred in jurisdiction and other elements of 
the revised transportation plan. 

BLM would work with the Utah Department of 
Transportation, Washington County, and project 
sponsors to identify a suitable route for the 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PIAN AND TINAL E N V I R O N M E N T A 1. IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.11 



C H AFTER 2 » PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



Southern Transportation Corridor and nnajor 
connectors along the Arizona border from State 
Route 59 near Hildale to a proposed 1-15 inter- 
change on state land near Atkinville. For further 
details, see the discussion on the proposed route 
under Rights-of-Way in the Lands section of this 
Proposed Plan. 

Within the Washington County Habitat 
Conservation Plan (HCP) Reserve, road mainte- 
nance, upgrades, and new construction would 
continue to be guided by HCP requirements and 
protocols as described in Appendix A of the 
HCP Where public lands are involved, 
upgrades and new construction would be sub- 
ject to applicable environmental study and con- 
sultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS). 



Air Quality 



Air quality within Washington County is typical 
of rural areas in the western United States and is 
generally good to excellent (Bill Wagner, per- 
sonal communication, 1997). The area is char- 
acterized by limited industrial activity and has 
no large emission sources of air pollution. 
Ambient pollutant levels are usually near or 
below measurable limits in undeveloped areas. 
Exceptions include high, short-term localized 
concentrations of total suspended particulates 
(TSP) primarily in the form of wind-blown dust 
or smoke from natural or human-caused fires. 
Ozone and carbon monoxide may periodically 
be measurable, particularly around the growing 
communities of St. George and Hurricane. 

All public lands within the county have been 
designated as either attainment areas or unclas- 
sified for all pollutants and have been placed in 
Class II under the prevention of significant dete- 
rioration (PSD) guidelines. This classification 
allows air quality deterioration associated with 
moderate, well-controlled growth. TSP concen- 
trations are expected to be higher near towns, 
developed agricultural lands, and areas crossed 
by numerous unpaved roads. Recent studies 
indicate that road dust may contribute substan- 
tially to visibility impairment throughout the 
Colorado Plateau (Grand Canyon Visibility 
Transport Commission, 1996). Studies by the 
Utah Department of Environmental Quality 
(DEQ), the U.S. Environmental Protection 



Agency, and the National Park Service reveal 
that periodic deterioration from pollutants 
occurs as a result of long-range, regional pollu- 
tion from metropolitan sources elsewhere in the 
southwestern United States. 

Zion National Park lies at the eastern end of 
Washington County within the resource area 
boundary. It is designated a Class I area under 
the PSD regulations. The designation allows 
only small incremental increases to pollutant 
levels and establishes protection for visibility 
and other related values. Regional deterioration 
of visibility in national parks and special man- 
agement areas due to haze, dust, and various 
pollutants in the Colorado Plateau area is being 
addressed through the Grand Canyon Visibility 
Transport Commission with assistance from 
affected local, state, federal, and tribal interests. 
The Commission acknowledges that urban 
growth, fugitive dust, and increased use of fire 
in resource management will continue to add to 
visibility concerns in the region (GCVTC, 1996). 

BLM's objective would be to ensure that autho- 
rizations granted to use public lands and that 
BLM's own management programs would com- 
ply with and support local, state, and federal 
laws, regulations, and implementation plans 
pertaining to air quality. 

In particular, all BLM actions and use authoriza- 
tions would be designed or stipulated so as to 
protect the high-quality airshed within Zion 
National Park and other Class I areas in the 
region and to otherwise minimize impacts to 
visibility. 

Prescribed burns would be approved through 
the State of Utah permitting process and timed 
so as to maximize smoke dispersal. In accor- 
dance with state agency consultation, ignition 
would be approved only when the burning 
index is 500 or greater. 

Industry proposals for development on public 
lands that would involve new emission sources 
would be analyzed under new source review 
procedures by the Utah DEQ for PSD and visi- 
bility impacts prior to approval and measures 
applied to ensure compliance with applicable 
standards. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2.12 



CHAPTER 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



Soil and Water Resources 

Because most of the public lands in Wasinington 
County are in a desert or arid environment, the 
management of water-related resources is criti- 
cal to sustaining a healthy, productive land base 
and meeting a large variety of human and eco- 
nomic needs. In areas of the county experienc- 
ing rapid urbanization, public lands are inter- 
mingled with state and private lands and man- 
agement of drainages and watersheds is highly 
fragmented. In these and other areas of public 
ownership, municipalities, local governments, 
state wildlife agencies, livestock operators, min- 
ing ventures, adjacent landowners, and increas- 
ing numbers of recreationists are dependent on 
public lands for access to water resources, man- 
agement of important watersheds, and/or the 
storage and transportation of water through per- 
mits or rights-of-way from source to point of 
use. Because of these factors, it is essential that 
BLM work collaboratively with local, state, and 
other federal agencies, Indian tribes, user 
groups, university researchers, and diverse inter- 
ested publics to develop plans and implement 
approved recommendations lo achieve a sound 
balance in how these resources are used to 
meet the community's needs and to support the 
conservation of natural resources in the county. 

BLM's objectives would be to work with munic- 
ipalities, state and local agencies, and other 
interested parties to (a) protect community 
watersheds and sources of culinary water, (b) 
reduce erosion, stream sedimentation, and salin- 
ization, (c) improve water quality in streams and 
rivers, (d) promote water conservation, (e) 
ensure compliance with state and federal laws 
pertaining to water quality and pollution pre- 
vention, (f) ensure water availability for the 
maintenance of key natural systems and human 
enjoyment, and (g) where necessary to meet 
essential community needs, identify environ- 
mentally suitable sites for water storage and 
routes for water transport. 

Soils and Watershed 

BLM would implement the following measures 
to achieve goals for sound watershed manage- 
ment in collaboration with user groups, munici- 
palities, and other local, state, and federal agen- 
cies. Such measures would be designed to pro- 
tect fragile soils, reduce erosion and stream sed- 



imentation, and lessen impacts of saline runoff 
into streams and rivers throughout the county. 

• The proposed Red Bluff, Upper Beaver 
Dam Wash, and Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce 
ACECs would be managed, in part, to 
protect critical watersheds, saline soils, 
and/or water quality. Specific manage- 
ment prescriptions that would be applied 
under this Plan are contained under 
Special Emphasis Areas in the section on 
proposed ACECs. Protection would 
include no surface occupancy or special 
stipulations for fluid mineral leasing, off- 
road travel limitations or closures, select- 
ed mineral withdrawals, designation as 
right-of-way avoidance areas, and restric- 
tions on fuelwood and mineral materials 
sales. The critical watershed in the City 
Creek area would be fully protected by 
provisions of the Washington County HCP 
as carried forward into this Proposed 
Plan. Among other things, such planned 
actions would restrict or prohibit future 
development incompatible with HCP 
Reserve goals, retire affected grazing per- 
mits, and limit vehicle travel to designated 
roads and trails (for details, see the HCP 
discussion in the section on Special Status 
Animal Species under Fish and Wildlife 
Habitat Management). 

• Critically eroding soils in the West Santa 
Clara River watershed would be evaluated 
for nonstructural projects to reduce ero- 
sion in accordance with the findings and 
recommendations of the Virgin River 
Basin - Utah Cooperative Study (1990). 
Projects could focus on improving vegeta- 
tion composition and cover, enhancing 
and maintaining properly functioning 
riparian systems, and where necessary, 
adjusting grazing management and pat- 
terns of human use in the watershed. In 
conducting the evaluations and designing 
projects, BLM would involve affected 
operators and local communities in 
accordance with provisions of BLM 
Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health 
included in Appendix 3. Such actions 
would aLso be designed to complement 
planned actions in the Virgin Spinedace 
Conservation Agreement and Strategy. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN A N IJ FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMf'ACT STATEMENT 



2.13 



CHAPTER 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



• The Curly Hollow and Frog Hollow water- 
sheds, important riparian zones, and 
specified areas of highly erosive soils 
would be protected through off-road trav- 
el restrictions or closures. Project-related 
surface disturbances would be reclaimed 
to stabilize soils and encourage the 
reestablishment of vegetation and protec- 
tive cryptogamic crusts, where appropri- 
ate. The Curly Hollow and Frog hollow 
watersheds would also be designated 
rights-of-way avoidance areas and placed 
in fluid mineral leasing Category 2 along 
with other public lands with a severe ero- 
sion hazard. Leasing stipulations would 
require submission and approval of a plan 
of development that ensures soil produc- 
tivity would be maintained and adequate 
controls applied to prevent erosion and 
degradation of water quality. 

• Watershed control structures already in 
place and continuing to serve valid pur- 
poses would be maintained by the spon- 
soring agency so as to continue their 
proper functioning. Generally, lands con- 
taining such structures would be retained 
in public ownership unless transfer could 
guarantee long-term management of the 
structures for the purposes for which they 
were built. 

BLM would retain public lands within the 100- 
year floodplain along rivers and major streams 
in Washington County unless transfer would 
accomplish important objectives that significant- 
ly outweigh floodplain concerns and measures 
could be applied to the transfer that would 
prohibit or fully mitigate risks of floodplain 
development, or transfer would occur to an 
agency or owner who would manage effectively 
for floodplain protection. BLM would comply 
with the provisions of Executive Orders 1 1 988 
and 1 1 990 that require federal agencies to 
protect wetlands under their jurisdiction and 
avoid development within floodplains wherever 
possible. Specific protection that would be 
applied to floodplain management include the 
following: 

• Public lands within floodplains would 
generally be managed so as to preserve or 
restore the natural and beneficial values 



served by the floodplains. Structural 
developments within the floodplain that 
would be subject to recurring flood dam- 
age or which, in turn, would create 
adverse impacts to lands, resources, or 
developments in or adjacent to the flood- 
plain would be discouraged or not autho- 
rized. Multiple uses of the floodplain, 
including recreation, would be encour- 
aged where such would not disrupt the 
broad purposes for which the floodplain 
is being managed. 

• Prior to taking actions within designated 
floodplains, BLM would work with project 
sponsors to seek alternatives that involve 
no floodplain disturbance. Where suit- 
able alternatives do not exist, BLM would 
work with local and state agencies to 
evaluate the potential effects of such 
actions and apply measures needed to 
minimize the impact of floods on human 
safety, health, and welfare and to main- 
tain the functionality of the floodplain and 
related natural values. Where suitable 
mitigation cannot be applied to eliminate 
unacceptable impacts, BLM would not 
approve the action. 

• Non-federal lands within designated 
floodplains could be acquired as a result 
of collaboration with local, state, and fed- 
eral partners through multijurisdictional 
planning efforts such as the Washington 
County HCP, approved conservation 
agreements, cooperative management 
agreements, and plans to restore impor- 
tant riparian values or habitat for special 
status species. Such lands could be 
acquired through purchase, exchange, 
donation, or conservation easement. 

BLM would apply Standards for Rangeland 
Health approved for BLM in Utah (Appendix 3) 
in its various management programs to ensure 
that upland soils exhibit permeability and infil- 
tration rates that sustain or improve site produc- 
tivity, considering the specific soil type, climate, 
and landform. Best management practices 
appropriate to each site and resource manage- 
ment program would be implemented for sedi- 
ment control and monitored for effectiveness in 
meeting objectives for reducing sedimentation 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.14 



CHAPTER 2 » PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMEN T 



and stream salinity. Where standards and 
objectives are not being met, BLM would work 
with state, local, and affected partners to deter- 
mine the cause and adjust management prac- 
tices accordingly. 

Water Resources 

Population growth in Washington County has 
resulted in additional demands being placed on 
surface and groundwater resources in recent 
years (Utah DEQ, 1996). Numerous municipali- 
ties within the resource area have developed 
springs or wells on public lands as sources of 
culinary water. Protection of these resources 
would be afforded priority in accordance with 
state and federal requirements. The Navajo 
Sandstone Aquifer recharge area and other exist- 
ing or proposed culinary water sources on or 
adjacent to public land would be identified and 
managed as municipal watersheds. These 
would include properties with state-approved 
water rights used for municipal purposes. The 
following measures or management practices 
would be applied to municipal watersheds: (a) 
BLM would coordinate with local and state 
agencies as water protection plans arc devel- 
oped to ensure that federal land management 
actions or practices do not jeopardize drinking 
water quality; (b) municipal watersheds would 
be closed to mineral materials sales; (c) fluid 
mineral exploration and development would be 
subject to state and federal requirements for cas- 
ing of drill holes and use of cement plugs to 
prevent migration of contaminants or low quali- 
ty water and special leasing stipulations requir- 
ing submission of a plan of development that 
protects surface and groundwater quality; d) no 
hazardous material or landfill sites would be 
approved within the watersheds or in a location 
that would jeopardize watershed integrity; and 
(e) where BLM determines that proposed uses 
would degrade water quality within the water- 
shed below standards set by the State of Utah in 
R317-2, BLM would not approve such use. 
Nonpoint sources of water pollution are 
believed to be the largest single cause of water 
pollution in the State of Utah (Utah DEQ, 1996). 
Nutrient and sediment loading from agricultural 
practices associated with grazing and irrigation 
along with road proliferation, off-road travel, 
recreation practices, and resource extraction in 
certain areas contribute to the impairment of 
water quality in rivers and streams. BLM would 



continue to support and implement current 
agreements and memoranda of understanding 
with the Utah DEQ and Department of 
Agriculture to coordinate planning activities for 
the conservation of public land waters and to 
improve, maintain, and protect the quality of 
such for beneficial uses. It would also seek to 
prevent, abate, and control new or existing pol- 
lution of waters within Washington County and 
the surrounding region in collaboration with 
local, state, and federal partners. To achieve 
such goals, BLM would take the following 
actions: 

• Continue work with the Utah Nonpoint 
Source Task Force, under the provisions of 
the State of Utah Nonpoint Source 
Management Plan, to (a) prioritize water- 
bodies for nonpoint source control activi- 
ties, (b) seek funding for nonpoint source 
control projects, (c) develop and imple- 
ment coordinated resource activity plans 
to resolve nonpoint source related water 
quality problems, and (d) identify and 
develop best management practices to be 
employed on public rangelands to reduce 
nonpoint source pollution. 

• Fulfill its role as the designated manage- 
ment agency for controlling nonpoint 
source pollution on public lands in the 
resource area. 

• Wherever practical, require best manage- 
ment practices be employed by holders of 
various use authorizations involving pub- 
lic lands and employ such practices in its 
own watershed management activities. At 
the minimum, such would include the 
application of permit stipulations 
described in Appendix 1 and the Utah 
Standards and Guidelines described in 
Appendix 3. 

• Complementary to BLM's objectives for 
improving rangeland health, become an 
active partner in the Utah DEQ's Utah 
Watershed Approach Framework initiative 
(1996) and work closely with other 
stakeholders in the Lower Colorado 
Watershed Unit in (a) building public 
support for a comprehensive, basinwide 
approach to resolving water quality 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RtSOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL E N V [ R O N M E N TA L IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.15 



CHAPTER 



PROPOSE P RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



problems, (b) collecting essential data rel- 
ative to water quality and pollutant 
sources, (c) ranking watershed concerns 
and targeting specific sites for planned 
actions, (d) developing management 
strategies to be employed, (e) jointly 
preparing watershed management unit 
plans, (f) implementing planning recom- 
mendations, and (g) monitoring and eval- 
uating the results. 

Meet the goals of the Colorado River 
Basin Salinity Control Act by implement- 
ing administrative actions in this Proposed 
Plan and continuing to require the use of 
best management practices in areas of 
highly erodible, saline soils to reduce or 
prevent the movement of salts into 
drainages and waterways that flow into 
the Virgin River or its tributaries. 

Collaborate with Washington County, 
municipalities, Indian tribes, affected state 
and federal agencies, user groups, and 
interested organizations in formulating 
and analyzing the proposed Virgin River 
Management Plan as it relates to water 
quality, water conservation, floodplain 
management, and protection of related 
resources along the Virgin River and its 
major tributaries. Among other things, 
the plan would propose to (a) protect and 
improve aquatic habitats for native 
wildlife species, (b) improve water quality, 
(c) implement water conservation strate- 
gies, (d) protect the 100-year floodplain 
and watersheds, (e) restore water flows to 
historic riverine habitat areas, (f) establish 
minimum water flows needed for habitat 
protection, (g) improve irrigation practices 
and efficiency of water storage, (h) recycle 
treated water, (i) develop a river trail and 
parkway system, and (j) provide water 
resources to meet human consumptive 
needs up to the year 2020. 

Coordinate the implementation of plan- 
ning recommendations approved through 
this Proposed Plan with the Utah 
Divisions of Water Quality and Water 
Resources to ensure consistency with the 
goals of the 1 990 Utah State Water Plan 
and the 1 993 supplement for the Kanab 
CreekA/irgin River Basin. The state plan 



and its supplement provide a comprehen- 
sive overview of water issues and man- 
agement recommendations that are direct- 
ly applicable to public lands in 
Washington County. 

• Implement those planning prescriptions 
outlined in this Plan under sections per- 
taining to Riparian Resources, Fish and 
Wildlife Habitat Management, and 
Special Emphasis Areas that bear directly 
on the reduction of chemical pollutants 
and sediments in streams or rivers and the 
improvement and maintenance of healthy, 
properly functioning waterways, riparian 
zones, and associated natural systems. 

BLM would collaborate with partners in local, 
state, and federal agencies to ensure that the 
collective programs for management of lands 
and waters in Washington County are effective 
in meeting the objectives of and complying with 
water quality standards established by the feder- 
al Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. 
In so doing, BLM would manage discretionary 
actions on public lands so as to fully support the 
designated beneficial uses described in the 
Standards of Quality for Waters for the State of 
Utah (R.31 7-2) for surface and groundwater. 

To protect reservoirs and perennial streams from 
unnecessary pollution and sedimentation from 
fluid mineral leasing activity, BLM would pro- 
hibit surface disturbance within 1 00 yards of the 
high water line of permanent water bodies 
through application of the 200-meter rule in 
federal regulations at 43 CFR 3101.1-2. 

BLM would collaborate with the State of Utah's 
Water Engineer, the Washington County Water 
Conservancy District, Indian Tribes, the Utah 
Division of Wildlife Resources, and other affect- 
ed local, state, and federal agencies in assessing 
stream segments throughout Washington County 
to determine which segments possess resource 
values warranting minimum instream flows to 
maintain desired values. BLM would work with 
such agencies to develop strategies using Utah 
State law and other appropriate mechanisms 
including agreements with water users to estab- 
lish and maintain such flows. Where appropri- 
ate, such studies would also evaluate options for 
protection of floodplains, improvement of water 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED R E S O U R C 1: MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.16 



CHAPTER 



OPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



quality, and conservation measures to eliminate 
wasteful practices. Table 2-7 depicts water- 
based resource values that could be the subject 
of such studies along stretches of creeks and 
rivers where the lands are currently in public 
ownership. 



On December 4, 1996, the United States 
entered into a settlement agreement with the 
State of Utah, the Washington County Water 
Conservancy District, and the Kane County 
Water Conservancy District that recognizes 
reserved water rights for Zion National Park, 



TABLE 2-7 • Water-Based Resource Values 



STREAM SEGMENT 



MILES 



WATER DEPENDENT 
RESOURCE VALUES 



East Fork Beaver Dam Wash 
Salt Lake Base Meridian 
T 40 S., R. 19W., Sees. 9 & 10 

Santa Clara River 
South of ivins 



Santa Clara River 

Cunlock Reservoir to private land 

Santa Clara 

Baker Dam South to private land 

West Fork Beaver Dam Wash 

Headwaters to private land north to 
Motoqua 

Quail Creek 

U. S. Forest boundary to private land 



3.1 



2,0 



3.2 



1.0 



12.7 



1.0 



Riparian vegetation, nongame fisheries, 
forage production and watering, 
undeveloped recreation. 

Riparian vegetation, undeveltjped 
recreation, nongame fisheries, forage 
production and watering. 

Riparian vegetation, undeveloped recreation, 
forage production and watering. 

Riparian vegetation, cold-water fisheries, 
recreation, wildlife forage and watering. 

Riparian vegetation, forage production 
and watering, undeveloped recreation. 



Riparian vegetation, developed recreation 
area, wildlife forage and watering, nongame 
fisheries. 



North Creek 

T. 42 S., R. 1 1 W., sec. 6: private land 



La Verkin Creek 

Private land near Toquervi lie 
to Zion National Park boundary 

Deep Creek/Crystal Creek 
Zion National Park Boundary 
north to private land 

Kolob Creek 
North of Zion National Park 



Virgin River 

Quail Creek Reservoir to 
confluence with Ash Creek 

Virgin River 

Atkinville to Stateline 

Ash Creek 

Ash Creek Reservoir to 
confluence with Virgin River 



1.5 



13.0 



7.5 



3.0 



6.0 



6.0 



1.0 



Riparian vegetation, undeveloped 
recreation, nongame fisheries, wildlife 
forage and watering. 

Riparian vegetation, nongame fisheries, 
forage production and watering, 
undeveloped recreation. 

Riparian vegetation, game fisheries, 
forage production and watering, 
undeveloped recreation. 

Riparian vegetation, cold-water fisheries 
forage protection and watering, 
undeveloped recreation. 

Riparian vegetation, woundfin minnow 
habitat, undeveloped recreation. 



Riparian vegetation, wilderness, undeveloped 
recreation, woundfin minnow habitat. 

Riparian vegetation, nongame fisheries, 
wildlife and livestock forage. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.17 



CHAPTER 2 » PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



subordinates the federal reserved water rights to 
existing state water law, and allows for some 
potential development of water above Zion 
National Park. In managing water resources on 
public lands and making decisions concerning 
any resource management program, BLM would 
take no action that would abrogate the intent or 
provisions of the agreement. 

BLM would work with the State of Utah and 
other affected agencies to evaluate designation 
and management of approximately 7 miles of 
the West Fork of the Beaver Dam Wash as an 
antidegradation segment. The designation 
would require proposed surface uses to be miti- 
gated through the application of best manage- 
ment practices to reduce adverse impacts to the 
watershed. Mining exploration and develop- 
ment would require plans of operation. BLM 
would continue to protect high quality waters 
on public land segments of the North Fork of 
the Virgin River and tributaries already designat- 
ed as Category 1 by the Utah Division of Water 
Quality under R31 7-2-12 of the Utah 
Administrative Code. 

Surface or underground waters arising on or 
flowing over and through public lands are 
essential for the management of numerous pub- 
lic resources. By law, the State of Utah adminis- 
ters unappropriated waters within its boundaries 
through the Utah State Water Engineer. Where 
needed to support public land management pur- 
poses including consumptive uses for livestock, 
wildlife, and public land user groups, BLM 
would seek to acquire water rights under Utah 
State law where such rights have not already 
been established. Acquisitions could occur 
through purchase, exchange, donation, or filing 
with the Utah State water engineer. 

Water rights that have been appropriated by 
non-federal parties on public lands through the 
state water engineer and which are supported 
by legal and physical access across public lands 
would continue to be recognized. Waters in 
excess of BLM's needs for consumptive uses or 
resource management would remain available 
for downstream water users in accordance with 
state law. BLM would continue to provide 
access across public lands and to approve facili- 
ties needed to collect, divert, or transport water, 
based on legally recognized water rights. Such 



actions would be analyzed on a case-by-case 
basis with public participation and approved 
where the review determines the action would 
not adversely affect the management of impor- 
tant public resources or otherwise conflict with 
the objectives of this Plan. 

A total of six potential reservoir sites identified 
by the State of Utah's Water Engineer and the 
Washington County Water Conservancy District 
on public lands in Washington County would 
be recognized as special resources warranting 
federal awareness and attention in future land 
management planning and decisionmaking 
processes (see Map 2.8). In evaluating land use 
proposals and management options for each of 
the six sites, BLM would give full consideration 
to the unique values associated with the poten- 
tial for water storage and related purposes prior 
to making decisions which would preempt the 
use of such sites for future reservoir develop- 
ment. Where such preemption is considered, 
the State of Utah and local, affected agencies 
would be consulted and given sufficient oppor- 
tunity to respond to the proposal before deci- 
sions are made. Development of any of the fol- 
lowing sites for reservoir purposes would 
require complete environmental and engineer- 
ing analysis and public participation prior to 
consideration for approval. 

• Anderson Junction 

• Warner Valley 

• Leeds Creek 

• Dry Creek 

• LaVerkin Creek (lower site) 

• Grapevine Wash 

A sixth proposed reservoir site located at Sand 
Hollow has recently been transferred to the 
Washington County Water Conservancy District 
(WCWCD) in accordance with provisions of the 
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management 
Act of 1 996 (November 1 2, 1 996). It is pre- 
sumed that reservoir construction would com- 
mence in accordance with WCWCD plans (for 
additional details, see the Sand Hollow 
Reservoir Project Report, Greystone, July 1997). 

Five additional reservoir sites listed in the Draft 
RMP/EIS were recognized by the state and the 
WCWCD as having potential for water storage 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL E N V I li O N M E N TA I IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.18 



CHAPTER 2 « PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



but are not carried forward into the Proposed 
Plan. These sites include the Shem site, the 
Gunlock Reservoir enlargement, the West Fork 
of the Beaver Dam Wash, the Lower Santa Clara 
River, and LaVerkin Creek (upper site). The 
Shem site, one of several options being consid- 
ered to resolve Indian water rights issues, is pro- 
posed on the Santa Clara River in the Shivwits 
Indian Reservation and would not fall within 
BLM's jurisdiction. Should reservoir design 
result in potential extension onto public lands, 
conflicts could occur with plans for Virgin 
spinedace restoration. The Gunlock Reservoir 
enlargement would occur almost entirely on 
state land and also would not fall within BLM's 
jurisdiction. 

Reservoir development on the remaining three 
potential sites would conflict with one or more 
decisions or objectives of this Plan. 
Development of a reservoir on the upper part of 
the West Fork of the Beaver Dam Wash within 
the proposed ACEC would conflict with man- 
agement objectives for maintenance of impor- 
tant riparian systems, restoration of Virgin 
spinedace populations, and protection of poten- 
tial habitat for the Southwestern willow flycatch- 
er. Because of the hydraulic connection of 
groundwater to surface water in the wash, 
development of a municipal water well field in 
the wash could cause loss of streamflow and be 
detrimental to surface water resource values 
identified in a recent hydrologic study of Beaver 
Dam Wash (Fogg, et al., 1998). To be consistent 
with the objectives of this Plan, well field con- 
figuration and pumpage would need to be eval- 
uated prior to development. Well field planning 
would need to show, among other things, that 
groundwater withdrawals could be sustained in 
the long term without adversely affecting surface 
flows and dependent resource values down- 
stream of the development. Reservoir develop- 
ment on the Lower Santa Clara River within the 
proposed ACEC would conflict with manage- 
ment objectives for the maintenance of impor- 
tant riparian systems, restoration of Virgin 
spinedace populations, and protection of signifi- 
cant cultural resources. Reservoir development 
at the upper site on LaVerkin Creek would con- 
flict with objectives to manage for natural values 
under the primitive recreation classification. 
Development would also conflict with BLM's 



suitability recommendation for Wild and Scenic 
River designation on this segment of the creek. 

Previous to publication of the Draft RMP/EIS, 
BLM managers had rejected potential reservoir 
sites on North Creek and Fort Pearce Wash. 
Concerns on North Creek involved potential 
water contamination from old well sites within 
an abandoned oil well field and potential 
impacts to Virgin spinedace habitat. Water 
storage development on Fort Pearce would 
destroy the National Historic Register property 
at Fort Pearce and impact a small but important 
riparian system and associated habitat for the 
spotted bat. 

BLM recognizes that additional sites with water 
storage potential may yet be identified by state 
or local water management agencies as a result 
of new studies or reevaluation and redesign of 
sites previously eliminated by the respective 
agencies or BLM. New proposals for develop- 
ment of such sites would be subject to addition- 
al environmental review with appropriate public 
participation and would be considered through 
the plan amendment process. Actual project 
approval and development of such sites could 
occur only after appropriate engineering studies 
and environmental analysis were completed and 
favorable decisions issued by respective state, 
local, and federal agencies. 

An application has been filed by the 
Washington County Water Conservancy District 
to construct a pipeline to convey water from 
Lake Powell near Wahweap to the proposed 
Sand Hollow Reservoir. Possible route locations 
and project features are described in the Lake 
Powell Pipeline Feasibility Study (Boyle 
Engineering Corp./Alpha Engineering Inc., 
1995). The proposal was not addressed in the 
Draft RMP and is not carried forward into the 
Proposed Plan/Final EIS. It will, however, be 
analyzed in a separate environmental impact 
statement prepared under a joint agency process 
and, if necessary, a plan amendment prepared 
for affected public lands within the right-of-way. 
According to Water Conservancy District offi- 
cials and statements in the Purpose and Need 
Study (WCWCD, 1995), approval and construc- 
tion of the pipeline could satisfy long-term 
municipal, industrial, and instream flow require- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.19 



CHAPTER 2 » PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



merits and eliminate the need for most, if not 
all, other reservoir proposals on public lands in 
Washington County (Ron Thompson, personal 
communication, 1997). 

Riparian Resources 

BLM estimates that there are 6,770 acres of 
riparian habitat on public lands in the Dixie 
Resource Area (USDI/BLM, 1988). These are 
areas along streams, rivers, and desert washes 
where the vegetation reflects the permanent 
influence of surface or subsurface water (see 
Map 2.8). Of this total, approximately 4,600 
acres are associated with surface water In a 
desert environment, these areas are critical to 
the integrity of natural systems important to peo- 
ple and wildlife. Riparian zones are key to the 
quality of most recreation experiences along 
major streams and rivers as well as the beauty 
of the landscape wherever they are found in 
Washington County. Healthy riparian zones 
store water, sustain quality fisheries, nesting 
sites, winter resting places for migrating water- 
fowl, and help maintain water quality in the 
affected rivers and streams. Moreover, they link 
habitat zones, provide travel lanes for wildlife, 
and support numerous species listed under state 
and federal laws. In proper condition, they can 
also lessen the adverse impacts of serious flood 
events that occur from time to time in drainages 
throughout Washington County. 

BLM's objective, to the extent practical, would 
be to manage riparian areas so as to maintain or 
restore them to properly functioning conditions 
and to ensure that stream channel morphology 
and functions are appropriate to the local soil 
type, climate, and landform. Currently, 56 per- 
cent of riparian habitats in the resource area are 
in properly functioning condition, 29 percent 
are functioning at risk, and 5 percent are non- 
functioning. Condition is unknown on 10 per- 
cent. Site specific plans, where appropriate, 
would be prepared in collaboration with affect- 
ed livestock operators, the Utah Division of 
Wildlife Resources, the Washington County 
Water Conservancy District, and other interested 
parties, agencies, or organizations to identify 
desired plant communities, establish specific 
management objectives, and recommend prac- 
tices to be employed to achieve desired results. 



Specific priorities for riparian improvement are 
listed in the sections of this Proposed Plan on 
Livestock Crazing, Fish and Wildlife Habitat 
Management, Soil and Water Resources, and 
Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental 
Concern. Monitoring and evaluation strategies 
would be implemented to measure progress in 
accordance with Utah's Standards for 
Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 
Management (Appendix 3). 

Riparian areas would be protected by standard 
or special stipulations in leases and permits 
including those listed in Appendix 1, Standards 
Applied to Surface Disturbing Activities. In 
accordance with Utah BLM riparian policy 
(1993), major new surface disturbing activity 
would not be approved on public lands within 
100 yards of riparian areas unless (a) there are 
no practical alternatives, (b) long-term impacts 
could be fully mitigated, or (c) the action was 
designed to enhance the riparian resources. 

To avoid contamination of water resources and 
inadvertent damage to nontarget plants and 
animals, aerial application of pesticides would 
not be approved within 1 00 feet of a riparian 
area unless the product is registered for such use 
with the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Livestock salt blocks and other nutritional sup- 
plements would be located at a sufficient dis- 
tance from natural waters and riparian areas to 
ensure that livestock concentrations do not 
impact the values being managed. 

Monitoring studies would be established in 
riparian areas where increased recreation, OHV 
use, or grazing patterns are believed to be 
adversely impacting goals for riparian manage- 
ment. Impacts on key riparian species would be 
monitored on the following priority river seg- 
ments: Santa Clara River (below Gunlock), Santa 
Clara River (Land Hill segment). Fort Pearce 
Wash (ruins area), and the Virgin River near 
Zion National Park. Other segments could be 
added at a later time as resource conditions 
warrant and priorities allow. Regular monitor- 
ing of species and sites would be conducted to 
determine whether vegetative conditions and 
objectives are being achieved. If declining 
trends were identified, BLM would work with 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.20 



CHA P T E R 



P R QPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



livestock operators, user groups, and other 
affected agencies, communities, or organiza- 
tions to identify causes of the declining trends 
and to recommend and take corrective action. 
Options could include but are not limited to 
fencing, barriers, selected closures, vegetative 
manipulations, seasonal use restrictions for 
camping or recreation, and adjustments in graz- 
ing management. Degraded sites along the 
Santa Clara River below Gunlock Reservoir and 
segments of the Virgin River near Zion National 
Park would receive priority attention. The ripari- 
an demonstration project on North Creek would 
be maintained and used as an example of best 
management practices that could be employed 
for other zones being impacted by heavy recre- 
ation use, off-road travel, or grazing. 

Where consistent with other objectives of this 
Proposed Plan, control of exotic or undesirable 
plant species could be employed to achieve 
desired plant communities on selected reaches 
of the Virgin and Santa Clara Rivers and major 
tributaries. Such action would be coordinated 
through agreements with interested local, state, 
and federal agencies and be subject to appropri- 
ate consultation with the FWS. 

Generally, riparian areas would be retained in 
public ownership unless they are small and iso- 
lated and cannot be effectively managed 
through agreement with local, state, or other 
federal agencies or interested conservation 
groups. Changes in ownership would be per- 
missible if such would result in the acquisition 
of lands with superior public values or if such 
changes were intended to meet riparian man- 
agement objectives. 

Where small or isolated parcels of public land 
contain riparian resources in unsatisfactory con- 
dition, BLM would work with surrounding 
landowners, municipalities, affected permittees, 
concerned organizations, and local or state 
agencies to develop cooperative agreements that 
would (a) help reestablish desired vegetation, (b) 
implement sound management to accomplish 
mutual objectives, and (c) restore the areas to a 
healthy condition. 

With landowner consent, BLM would acquire 
lands containing important riparian areas in 
proximity to other public lands where riparian 



management is being emphasized. The pres- 
ence of high public values related to special sta- 
tus species habitats, floodplains, water quality 
issues, and recreation opportunities would be 
considered in evaluating such proposals. 
Acquisitions would be considered where part- 
nerships, funding, and management priorities 
would assure long-term commitments to main- 
tain or restore the riparian areas to properly 
functioning conditions. 

To minimize destruction of essential vegetation, 
OHV use in riparian areas would be limited to 
existing roads and trails unless a more restrictive 
designation is specified. Trails found to impede 
restoration of degraded areas would be closed, 
relocated, or subjected to seasonal restrictions 
to achieve desired conditions. Because of cur- 
rent high use levels and extensive degradation 
of streamside vegetation, OHV use on portions 
of the Virgin and Santa Clara Rivers would be 
limited to designated roads and trails. Mountain 
bike use would be limited to existing roads and 
trails in riparian areas unless subject to a more 
restrictive designation. See the section on Off- 
Highway Vehicle Management for proposed 
OHV use designations. 

To minimize disturbance to riparian values, 
riparian areas would be placed in a right-of-way 
avoidance category (except in designated corri- 
dors) and closed to sales of fuelwood and min- 
eral materials outside of established community 
pits. No surface occupancy would be allowed 
for fluid mineral leasing activity in riparian 
zones. 

Vegetation Resources 

Public lands in Washington County support a 
wide variety of vegetation types depending on 
soils, climate, and landform as well as effects of 
past and present land use and the presence of 
exotic plant species. Healthy, productive vege- 
tation communities are key to soil retention, 
wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, riparian sys- 
tems, watershed, and human use and enjoyment 
including recreation and scenic attraction. 
BLM's overall objective for vegetation manage- 
ment would be to ensure that the amount, type, 
and distribution of vegetation on public lands in 
Washington County reflects desired plant com- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.21 



CHAPTER 2 » PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



munities. These are defined as plant communi- 
ties that produce the kind, proportion, and 
amount of vegetation necessary to meet or 
exceed management objectives for a given eco- 
logical site. Development of such communities 
Vi/ould sustain a desired level of productivity for 
wildlife, livestock, and nonconsumptive purpos- 
es while maintaining properly functioning eco- 
logical conditions. BLM would apply Utah 
Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines 
for Grazing Management (Appendix .3) in man- 
aging its various resource programs and monitor 
the results to ensure vegetation management 
objectives were being met. Collaboration with 
affected operators, government agencies, Indian 
tribes, and interested organizations would bring 
together resources needed to complete specific 
management plans, implement approved recom- 
mendations, and monitor and evaluate the 
results. 

Vegetation Composition 

BLM would implement management practices 
on selected vegetation types in areas of suitable 
soils and annual precipitation to increase the 
relative composition of desirable browse and 
grass species to meet important wildlife, live- 
stock, and watershed goals. Objectives for spe- 
cific vegetation types include the following: 

• In mountain shrub and sagebrush vegeta- 
tion types, maximize habitat diversity by 
reducing the amount of shrubs and sage- 
brush and increasing grass and forbs in 
selected areas. 

• In the pinyon-juniper woodland type, 
maximize habitat diversity in selected 
areas by reducing the number of trees and 
increasing desirable shrubs, grasses, and 
forbs. 

• In riparian areas within the mountain 
shrub type, maximize habitat diversity by 
maintaining woody species composition 
while providing for stream bank protec- 
tion through adequate forb and grass 
cover. 

These objectives would be achieved through 
specific actions identified and analyzed in the 
proposed Dixie Fire Management Plan, allot- 
ment management plans, habitat management 



plans, and other activity plans in the wildlife, 
watershed, livestock, and riparian programs. 

The use and perpetuation of native plant species 
would be emphasized. However, when restor- 
ing or rehabilitating disturbed or degraded 
rangelands, nonintrusive and non-native species 
would be approved for use where native species 
(a) are not available, (b) are not economically 
feasible, (c) cannot achieve ecological objec- 
tives as well as non-native species, and/or (d) 
cannot compete with already established non- 
native species. 

Seed mixes used for rehabilitation would reflect 
a diversity of plant types suitable to the soils, 
climate, and landform of the area being 
restored. Mixes would be designed to meet a 
range of purposes appropriate for the land 
involved including wildlife, watershed, soil 
retention, livestock, and fire ecology. 

Rangelands that have been burned, reseeded, or 
otherwise treated to alter vegetative composition 
would be closed to livestock grazing as follows: 
(a) burned rangelands, whether by wildfire or 
prescribed burning, would be ungrazed for a 
minimum of one complete growing season fol- 
lowing the burn, and (b) rangelands that have 
been reseeded or otherwise chemically or 
mechanically treated would be ungrazed for a 
minimum of two complete growing seasons fol- 
lowing treatment. 

In accordance with national and state policies, 
BLM would continue working with the 
Washington County Weed Supervisor through 
written agreement for the control of noxious 
weeds on and near public lands. In order to 
prevent the introduction and spread of noxious 
weed species, BLM would seek to develop part- 
nerships with landowners, Washington County, 
state agencies, other federal land management 
agencies, and interested organizations. Such 
partnerships would formulate and analyze an 
integrated weed management approach to 
develop public awareness programs, establish 
weed management objectives and priorities, 
develop and apply common inventory tech- 
niques, implement approved treatments and 
control measures, and monitor and report 
results. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2.22 



CHAPTER 2 



P ROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



Specific weed treatments would be determined 
by plant species, site characteristics, and man- 
agement objectives. A combination of 
approaches could be employed to achieve the 
most environmentally sound results including 
mechanical, biological, and chemical tech- 
niques or changes in land use. 

Because demand would rapidly exhaust avail- 
able supply, desert vegetation sales would be 
limited to designated salvage areas only. These 
areas typically include lands under construction 
for rights-of-way or other projects undertaken or 
approved by BLM. Specific authorization for 
the collection of vegetation could be approved 
for scientific purposes. Except for federally-list- 
ed species described in this section, collection 
of vegetative products for Native American cere- 
monial or religious purposes would be allowed. 

Special Status Plant Species 

In addition to the vegetation objectives 
described above, BLM would apply appropriate 
management to special status plant species 
located in the resource area. Special status 
plant species include (a) threatened or endan- 
gered species listed or species proposed for 
such listing under the Endangered Species Act, 
(b) candidate species, and (c) state-listed sensi- 
tive species (see Appendix 4). BLM's objective 
would be to help recover listed species and 
manage candidate and sensitive species so that 
additional listings are not necessary. 
Management would focus on the development 
and implementation of recovery plans for listed 
species and conservation agreements and strate- 
gies for candidate and other sensitive species. 

Where threatened or endangered plant species 
occur on public lands in Washington County, 
BLM would collaborate with affected local, 
state, and federal agencies and researchers in 
the implementation of approved recovery plans 
to stabilize and recover such species. In addi- 
tion to on-the-ground actions, strategies would 
be developed to provide public education on 
species at risk, significance of the species to the 
human and biological communities, and rea- 
sons for protective measures that would be 
applied to the lands involved. 

Generally, public lands supporting federally-list- 
ed or sensitive plant species would be retained 



in public ownership unless exchange or transfer 
would result in acquisition of better habitat for 
the same species or provide for suitable man- 
agement by another qualified agency or organi- 
zation. Habitats for such species could be 
acquired where logical to block up management 
areas and where BLM or qualified partners have 
the resources needed to effectively manage for 
the intended purpose. 

The following additional measures would be 
applied to the plant species indicated to pro- 
mote their survival and recovery. Other mea- 
sures could also be employed as a result of 
yearly monitoring studies and consultations with 
the FWS, the Utah DWR, and other interested 
parties: 

Dwarf Bear-Claw Poppy and 
Siler Pincushion Cactus 

• BLM would continue to implement exist- 
ing recovery plans, habitat management 
plans, and the Washington County 
Habitat Conservation Plan as they apply 
to these two species. Among other things, 
the plans call for monitoring and studies, 
habitat consolidation, selected fencing, 
public education, signing, law enforce- 
ment, and protection from mining, off- 
road travel, and other forms of impacting 
land use. 

• The Red Bluff and Warner Ridge/Fort 
Pearce habitat areas would be designated 
and managed as Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern (ACECs). Specific 
prescriptions that would be applied to 
these areas are described in the section of 
this plan on ACECs under Special 
Emphasis Areas. 

• To reduce conflicts and additional distur- 
bance, habitat areas would be designated 
as rights-of-way avoidance areas and 
closed to fuelwood and mineral materials 
sales. Plants would be protected by 
restricting mountain bike use and off-road 
vehicle travel to designated roads and 
trails. 

• Dwarf bear-claw poppy habitat adjacent 
to Webb Hill would be consolidated 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.23 



CHAPTER 2 « PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGE M E N T 



through land exchange with the Utah 
School and Institutional Trust Lands 
Administration, fenced, and signed to 
increase public awareness of efforts to 
recover the plant. The area is within the 
St. George City limits and would remain 
closed to fluid mineral leasing. 

Holmgren Milkvetch and Hermit's Milkvetch 

• In collaboration with interested local, 
state, and federal agencies, institutions, 
and Indian tribes, BLM would prepare 
conservation agreements and strategies 
designed to stabilize declining popula- 
tions and promote protective management 
to ensure survival of the species. 

• To reduce conflicts and additional distur- 
bance, habitat areas would be designated 
as rights-of-way avoidance areas and 
closed to fuelwood and mineral materials 
sales. Plants would be protected by 
restricting mountain bike use and off-road 
vehicle travel to designated roads and 
trails. 

• Prior to surface disturbing exploration or 
development associated with fluid miner- 
al leasing, botanical surveys would be 
completed and known populations avoid- 
ed to eliminate the taking of plants. 

• Habitat areas would be kept free from use 
of chemical pesticides and herbicides. 

• Where necessary to protect small, isolated 
populations of Hermit's Milkvetch under 
10 acres in size, BLM would fence areas 
to prevent inadvertent destruction of 
plants. 

Other Sensitive Plant Species 

• BLM would continue to work with inter- 
ested local, state, and federal partners in 
conducting or authorizing field invento- 
ries and studies to establish or refine 
ranges of occurrence, population data, 
habitat requirements, and baseline species 
conditions and subsequent trends. Based 
on the results of these studies, joint strate- 



gies could be developed for habitat pro- 
tection and to eliminate the need for 
formal listing. 



Fish 
Habitat 



e 
gement 



Within Washington County, BLM manages pub- 
lic lands as habitat for a great variety of wildlife 
species. Because much of the county lies in the 
transition zone between the Basin and Range, 
the Mojave Desert, and the Colorado Plateau, 
many wildlife species are at the extreme end of 
their natural ranges. Seven animal species are 
listed as threatened or endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act. Some animals are also 
listed by BLM and the State of Utah as "sensi- 
tive" because of limited distribution or declining 
populations or status as threatened or endan- 
gered under state rules and policies. By law, 
wildlife is managed directly under the Utah 
Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR). 
Consequently, state officials work closely with 
BLM and other interested parties to achieve 
goals for healthy, diverse, and sustainable 
wildlife populations. 

Under this Proposed Plan, BLM's overall objec- 
tive for fish and wildlife habitat management 
would be to maintain habitats in properly func- 
tioning conditions to support natural wildlife 
diversity, reproductive capability, and appropri- 
ate human use and enjoyment. An important 
objective of BLM's habitat management program 
would be to work with state, local, and other 
federal partners to minimize or eliminate the 
need for additional listing of species under the 
Endangered Species Act in Washington County. 

To meet the above objective, BLM would man- 
age suitable public land habitats for the recov- 
ery or reestablishment of native populations 
through collaborative planning with local, state, 
and federal agencies, user groups, and interest- 
ed organizations. BLM would also seek to limit 
additional adverse impacts to crucial habitats on 
public lands from urbanization and encroach- 
ment to preserve the integrity of wildlife corri- 
dors and migration routes and access to key for- 
age, nesting, and spawning areas. 



PIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.24 



CHAP T E R 2 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



Consistent with other priorities, BLM would 
consolidate blocks of public lands resulting in 
improved habitat management capability. Such 
would occur in key habitat areas for listed 
species and other important wildlife populations 
including, but not limited to, lands within the 
Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan 
Reserve, the Beaver Dam Slope, the Deep Creek 
drainage, and in key riparian zones. 

Crucial mule deer winter range would be pro- 
tected from the potential effects of fluid mineral 
leasing with a Category 2 seasonal stipulation to 
close the lands to exploration or development 
from November 1 to April 15. Elk calving areas 
would be closed for the same reason from May 
1 to July 30. These seasonal use restrictions 
would also be applied to mineral materials 
sales, forest product sales, and rights-of-way 
construction. 

Desert bighorn sheep habitat in the Beaver Dam 
Mountains would continue to be managed in 
collaboration with the Utah DWR to support the 
existing herd in that location. Existing water 
developments would be maintained with the 
help of volunteers and interested organizations. 

A West Zion Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 
would be developed in collaboration with the 
Utah DWR and other interested parties to guide 
management of 192,200 acres of wildlife habi- 
tat in eastern Washington County. Seven exist- 
ing HMPs throughout the rest of the county 
would continue to be implemented. 

Prescribed burns in selected areas (including 
wildfires which meet approved prescriptions in 
the proposed Dixie Fire Management Plan) 
would be utilized to improve vegetation compo- 
sition to benefit wildlife habitat for big game 
and other species. See the sections of this Plan 
on Fire Management and Vegetation 
Composition 1^or further details. A 500-acre sale 
of pinyon and juniper trees would be approved 
in the Potters Peak area to improve mule deer 
habitat. 

BLM would collaborate with local, state, and 
federal agencies, adjacent landowners, users 
groups, and interested parties to protect and 
enhance viable fisheries habitat on segments of 



the Santa Clara River immediately below Baker 
Dam Reservoir, the upper West Fork of the 
Beaver Dam Wash, Deep Creek, Crystal Creek, 
and Kolob Creek. Protective measures would 
include OHV restrictions. Category 2 and 3 
mineral leasing stipulations, pesticide restric- 
tions, and closures to mineral materials sales 
described in the sections of this Plan on Fluid 
Minerals, Water Resources, Riparian Resources, 
Recreation, and Off-Highway Vehicle 
Management. Enhancement would occur 
through riparian improvements, stream bank sta- 
bilization, gabion construction in suitable areas, 
water quality improvements, and selected land 
acquisitions in conjunction with riparian man- 
agement objectives. Virgin spinedace recovery 
objectives would take precedence if conflicts 
develop with fisheries habitat proposals. 

BLM would work with the Utah DWR to restrict 
camping from October 15 to November 15 
within 0.25 mile of the following water sources 
west of the Santa Clara River: twelve springs 
including Cove, Jackson, Red Hollow, Quail, 
Grapevine, Crazy, Indian, Welcome, Middle, 
Reber, Summit, and Dodge, all water catch- 
ments, and all DWR guzzlers. This seasonal 
restriction is needed to protect wildlife access to 
these critical water sources during the fall big 
game hunting season. 

In collaboration with the Utah DWR and other 
interested parties, BLM would develop new 
wildlife waters in areas where field studies 
reveal the need for such to maintain healthy, 
viable populations of mule deer or other game 
and nongame species. Such waters would be 
developed in accordance with the objectives 
and guidelines of applicable game and 
nongame management plans, habitat manage- 
ment plans, and allotment management plans. 

Special Status Animal Species 

BLM would manage public lands to meet the 
goals and objectives of recovery plans, conser- 
vation agreements and strategies, approved 
activity level plans, and the Washington County 
HCP Implementation Agreement related to the 
recovery of special status animals in Washington 
County. As part of its plan implementation, 
BLM would work with its partners to promote 
public education on species at risk, significance 
to the human and biological communities, and 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED R E S O U R C 1: MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.25 



CHAPTER 2 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



reasons for protective measures that would be 
applied to the lands involved. 

BLM's objective would be to collaboratively 
manage habitat for federally-listed species so as 
to achieve recovery and delisting. Approved 
recovery plans would guide management deci- 
sions. Recovery plan actions already imple- 
mented would be evaluated for effectiveness in 
achieving desired effects and revised where 
studies show objectives have not been met. 

BLM would also collaborate with appropriate 
local, state, and federal agencies in the manage- 
ment of habitat for nonlisted special status ani- 
mal species with the objective of eliminating the 
need for additional listings. Management 
actions would be guided by conservation agree- 
ments and strategies. Special attention would 
be given to those animals listed as "sensitive" 
under the Utah Sensitive Species List maintained 
by the Utah DWR. 

Critical habitat for federally-listed species and 
habitat for candidate species would be designat- 
ed right-of-way avoidance areas and closed to 
mineral materials sales. Appropriate use 
restrictions affecting off-road travel, mineral 
leasing, mining, recreation, occupancy, and 
fuelwood sales would be employed where need- 
ed to accomplish conservation and recovery 
objectives. 

Where monitoring studies show that habitats are 
being degraded because of discretionary land 
uses, BLM would collaborate with affected per- 
mittees, operators, or user groups, and interested 
agencies and other parties in designing and 
implementing changes in the impacting land use 
to restore the land and meet recovery objec- 
tives. Permanent elimination of one or more 
uses would occur where studies and related 
data support the conclusion that no other alter- 
natives would resolve the conflict, where affect- 
ed parties are fully involved throughout the 
process, and where the requirements of applica- 
ble federal regulations for public notification 
and due process are met. 

BLM would collaborate with affected local, 
state, and federal agencies, water users, Indian 
tribes, and other interested entities in assessing 



instream flow requirements needed to sustain 
viable populations of federally-listed or sensitive 
fish species. Based on such studies, BLM would 
promote and support the joint development of 
strategies for maintaining such flows under Utah 
State law or other appropriate mechanisms 
including agreements with affected water users. 
The Water Resources section of this Proposed 
Plan contains additional information on affected 
stream segments and related issues. 

Public lands supporting federally-listed or sensi- 
tive animal species would be retained in public 
ownership unless exchange or transfer would 
result in acquisition of better habitat for the 
same species or provide for suitable manage- 
ment by another agency or qualified organiza- 
tion. Habitats for such species could be 
acquired where logical to consolidate manage- 
ment areas and where BLM or qualified partners 
have the resources needed to effectively manage 
for the intended purpose. 

Section 7 consultation with the FWS would be 
required for any action that might affect federal- 
ly-listed species or associated critical habitats. 

Desert Tortoise 

On February 23, 1996, after extensive public 
review and publication of a final environmenlal 
impact statement (USDI/FWS, 1995), BLM, 
Washington County, the Utah Department of 
Natural Resources, the FWS, and the town of 
Ivins signed the Implementation Agreement for 
the Washington County, Utah, Habitat 
Conservation Plan (HCP). This HCP was pre- 
pared as part of the county's application for an 
incidental take permit under Section 10(a) of the 
Endangered Species Act and was designed to 
provide a comprehensive approach to preserv- 
ing and enhancing Mojave desert tortoise habi- 
tat north of St. George City. The HCP estab- 
lished a 61,022-acre desert reserve that consti- 
tutes a Desert Wildlife Management Area for the 
Upper Virgin River Recovery Unit described in 
the 1994 Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) 
Recovery Plan (see Map 2.9). BLM would con- 
tinue to implement the terms of the HCP and 
associated Agreement and incorporates them by 
reference into this Proposed Plan. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.26 



CHAPTER 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGE M E N T 



Generally, the HCP provides the following 
actions to be taken with regard to lands within 
the reserve boundaries: 

• BLM would work collaboratively with 
local, state, and federal HCP partners to 
accomplish the goals and the objectives 
of the HCP. Major goals include the 
preservation and protection of the desert 
tortoise and its habitat so as to achieve 
full recovery of the tortoise as well as 
other listed or sensitive species found 
within the recovery unit. Under the inci- 
dental take permit, Washington County 
and participating municipalities would be 
able to devote take areas outside the HCP 
Reserve to urban purposes including, 
among others, residential, commercial, 
industrial, and recreational uses. 

• BLM would seek to acquire, through 
exchange, purchase, or donation, state, 
private, or municipal inholdings within 
the reserve to reduce fragmented owner- 
ship and provide for consistent manage- 
ment. Acquisitions would occur on a 
"willing buyer - willing seller" basis. 
Lands so acquired would be managed in 
accordance with prescriptions planned for 
the remainder of the area. 

• BLM would seek to withdraw HCP lands 
from mining entry and would restrict 
motorized travel to designated roads and 
trails to reduce surface disturbance and 
related impacts to the resources being 
protected in the reserve. An off-road trav- 
el closure would be placed in the east 
half of Zone 3 coinciding with the primi- 
tive portion of the Washington County 
HCP Reserve (see Map 3.14 of the draft 
RMP) to preserve the natural values asso- 
ciated with that area. BLM would work 
with Washington County and its HCP 
partners to establish reasonable speed 
limits in the reserve needed to reduce the 
likelihood of accidental tortoise deaths 
from vehicle impacts. Where the HCP 
partners determine existing roads must be 
closed, BLM would work with the county 
to implement the closures under applica- 
ble slate law and federal regulations. 



• BLM would prepare an activity level plan 
in collaboration with HCP partners and 
affected user groups to define specific 
guidelines for human use within the 
reserve. Among other things, the plan 
would address how to manage hiking, 
rock climbing, horseback riding, moun- 
tain biking, and camping to avoid impacts 
to critical habitat. 

• Competitive recreation events would not 
be allowed because such activities are 
inconsistent with maintenance or 
improvement of critical habitats and can 
be provided for elsewhere in Washington 
County or in the surrounding areas. 

• New rights-of-way could be authorized in 
the reserve in accordance with protocols 
established in the HCP for such purposes 
(see HCP, Appendix A, Washington 
County, 1995). The protocols are intend- 
ed to avoid the most sensitive areas in the 
reserve and to limit habitat disturbance. 
Among other things the protocols provide 
for: (a) use of existing corridors in and 
outside of the HCP Reserve, (b) prelimi- 
nary project review by HCP biologists to 
minimize adverse impacts, (c) consulta- 
tion with the FWS, (d) preconstruction 
clearance and construction oversight by 
qualified biologists, (e) avoidance of bur- 
rows, (f) fencing and reduction of hazards 
created by construction activity, and (g) 
removal of tortoises at risk by qualified 
personnel. 

• Fences needed to control tortoise move- 
ments or to prevent vehicle or pedestrian 
traffic in protected areas would be 
installed, as needed, in accordance with 
HCP guidelines. In collaboration with 
user groups, access points would be pro- 
vided to allow ingress and egress for 
authorized purposes and use of approved 
trails. 

• Where agreement can be reached with 
permittees, grazing permits would be 
relinquished after compensation from 
Washington County and permanently 
retired on the Alger Hollow, Yellow 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.27 



CHAPTER 



PROP QSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



Knolls, Washington, and Red Cliffs allot- 
ments in the reserve. Other grazing per- 
mits in the reserve may be similarly 
retired within tortoise habitat where per- 
mittees choose to relinquish them. In 
accordance with current biological opin- 
ions of the FWS, spring grazing after 
March 31 would not be authorized on 
those portions of the Leeds, Sandstone 
Mountain, and Sand Hill allotments in 
Zone 4 of the reserve to remove potential 
conflicts during the tortoise active season. 
No grazing authorization would be grant- 
ed on lands acquired for reserve manage- 
ment in areas intended for permanent clo- 
sure. 

• In collaboration with the Utah DWR and 
other appropriate law enforcement agen- 
cies, BLM would implement public edu- 
cation and enforcement actions needed to 
accomplish the objectives of the reserve. 
BLM would also work with its HCP part- 
ners in locating, designing, and operating 
a desert wildlife education center to foster 
increased awareness of the important 
desert ecosystems in the reserve and 
throughout Washington County. 

• BLM would collaborate with the Utah 
DWR, the FWS, and other interested par- 
ties to monitor the status of desert tortois- 
es and to conduct studies needed to 
accomplish HCP objectives. Such studies 
could lead to adjustments in reserve man- 
agement so as to promote recovery of the 
tortoise or any other listed or sensitive 
species in the reserve. 

• In accordance with the provisions of the 
HCP, BLM would work with its HCP part- 
ners to achieve congressional designation 
of the reserve as a National Conservation 
Area so as to ensure continued recogni- 
tion and public support for the mainte- 
nance of critical reserve values. 

To meet HCP objectives, lands within the 
reserve would also be designated a right-of-way 
avoidance area and would be closed to mineral 
materials and fuelwood sales. The reserve 
would be placed under Category 3 (NSO) stipu- 
lations for fluid mineral leasing. Such restric- 



tions are necessary inasmuch as essential tor- 
toise habitat requirements and conditions need- 
ed for recovery cannot be met in areas impacted 
by extensive surface disturbance or heavy 
human activity. 

BLM would continue to work closely with the 
Utah DWR, the FWS, adjacent units of the BLM 
in Arizona and Nevada, and affected permittees 
to develop and implement coordinated plans for 
tortoise management on the Beaver Dam Slope. 
The Slope extends into three states and forms an 
essential part of the Northeastern Mojave 
Recovery Unit as described in the Desert 
Tortoise Recovery Plan. Through interstate col- 
laboration with its many state and federal part- 
ners, BLM has proposed to manage the Slope as 
an ACEC and has proposed consistent land use 
prescriptions across state lines designed to pro- 
tect and help recover tortoise populations in 
accordance with Recovery Plan objectives. 

The Beaver Dam Slope ACEC would also be 
managed so as to protect and further the objec- 
tives of the Woodbury Desert Study Area, the 
Joshua Tree National Natural Landmark, and the 
maintenance of important desert ecosystems 
that include numerous other plants and animals 
listed under state and federal procedures. The 
ACEC boundaries have been drawn to coincide 
as much as possible with the boundaries of the 
same unit in Arizona and Nevada. The entire 
proposed ACEC links with Desert Wildlife 
Management Areas, refuges, and other ACECs 
proposed for the remainder of the Northeastern 
Mojave Recovery Unit to provide a contiguous 
recovery zone of more than 1,750 square miles. 

The following use prescriptions would be 
applied to management of public lands within 
the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC. For additional 
details, see the discussion on the Beaver Dam 
Slope ACEC contained in the section of this 
Proposed Plan under Special Emphasis Areas. 

• Motorized travel would be restricted to 
designated roads and trails in order to 
reduce road proliferation and associated 
impacts to the habitat, tortoises, and other 
protected species in the area. BLM would 
work through Washington County to 
determine reasonable speed limits and 
roads needing closure under Utah state 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.28 



C H A P T E R 



OPQSED RESOURCE MANAGE M E N T 



law to reduce accidental tortoise deaths 
from vehicle impacts. Fences would be 
installed where needed to implement the 
restrictions and closures. Disturbed sur- 
faces in closed areas would be rehabilitat- 
ed to achieve naturahiike conditions, to 
the extent practical. 

Authorized hunting in season, noncon- 
sumptivc recreation, and other casual 
uses not found to adversely impact tor- 
toise habitat would be allowed. 
Mountain bikes would be restricted to 
designated roads and trails. Parking and 
vehicle-based camping would be restrict- 
ed to within 25 feet of designated roads. 

Noncommercial groups of over 75 per- 
sons camping in open areas would be 
required to obtain a letter of authorization 
from BLM that would establish require- 
ments for public sanitation and garbage 
removal and other terms needed to pro- 
tect the integrity of the habitat. 
Competitive events would not be autho- 
rized to prevent direct and indirect habitat 
degradation and tortoise mortality 
(USDI/FWS, 1994). 

BLM would retain lands in this area in 
public ownership and consider transfer 
only where such would help accomplish 
objectives for tortoise recovery. Intensive 
land uses such as agriculture, sanitary 
landfills, long-term occupancy, and 
motorized military maneuvers would not 
be approved. Non-federal lands within 
the area could be acquired through pur- 
chase, exchange, or donation to consoli- 
date habitat in public ownership. Lands 
so acquired would be managed under 
prescriptions applicable to the adjacent 
public lands. 

Category 3 (NSO) stipulations would be 
applied to fluid mineral leasing to prevent 
long-term habitat destruction and direct 
tortoise mortality from surface disturbing 
exploration, development, and operations. 
The area would be closed to fuelwood 
and mineral materials sales. Vegetation 
sales would be approved only for salvage 
on approved project construction. 



• The area would be designated as a right- 
of-way avoidance area for new rights-of- 
way except in designated utility and trans- 
portation corridors, Existing rights-of-way 
would be maintained in accordance with 
the respective right-of-way grant or other 
applicable authorization. 

• Spring grazing by livestock would be 
eliminated on those portions of the Castle 
Cliffs, Beaver Dam Slope, and Scarecrow 
Peak allotments within the ACEC except 
for the two special management areas 
recommended by the Utah DWR and the 
easternmost portion of the Woodbury 
Desert Study Area, which place emphasis 
on nontortoise management (see Map 
2.9). Winter grazing on these allotments 
would continue in accordance with cur- 
rent grazing prescriptions from November 
1 to March 15. Otherwise, grazing would 
be managed in accordance with the 
Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan, BLM's 
Rangewide Desert Tortoise Plan, and 
other applicable studies. 

In both the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC and the 
Washington County HCP reserve, BLM would 
suppress wildfires in accordance with the guide- 
lines in Fighting Wildfire in Desert Tortoise 
Habitat: Considerations for Land Managers, 
(T. Duck et al, 1994 - Desert Tortoise Council- 
International Symposium of Wildland Fire, 
1995). Generally, the guidelines call for apply- 
ing the principle of "minimum tool." Under this 
concept, BLM would use the least disruptive 
approach to initial attack and fire suppression 
needed to extinguish the fire and meet other 
resource objectives for the affected area. 
Qualified resource advisors would be onsite 
during fire suppression to guide firefighter activi- 
ties so as to minimize harm to tortoises and 
important habitats. 

In collaboration with affected state and federal 
agencies, predator control in either area could 
be allowed using techniques designed to control 
target species only. This would reduce the loss 
of hatchlings and juvenile tortoises to predators 
such as coyotes and ravens. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOUKCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.29 



CHAPTER 2 « PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



Outside of the HCP Reserve and the Beaver 
Dam Slope ACEC, tortoise habitat now designat- 
ed as critical would be protected by: 

- limiting motorized travel to existing roads 
and trails; 

- applying Category 2 stipulations to fluid 
mineral leasing to limit exploration and 
development to the tortoise inactive sea- 
son from October 1 5 to March 1 5; 

- closing the areas to fuelwood and mineral 
materials sales; 

- requiring biological surveys before sur- 
face disturbing activity and avoidance of 
den sites and other areas essential to tor- 
toise survival; and 

- designating such habitats as right-of-way 
avoidance areas (outside of utility 
corridors). 

As a result of communications from the FWS, 
BLM would expect that once the HCP Reserve 
and Beaver Dam Slope ACEC are in place, any 
designated critical habitats for the tortoise out- 
side of those special management areas would 
be withdrawn. (Robert Williams, personal com- 
munication and letter of July 21, 1997). 
Management of tortoises and habitats in such 
withdrawn areas would continue as outlined 
immediately above. 

Woundfin Minnow, Virgin River Chub, 
and Virgin Spinedace 

Management of public land habitat for listed 
and sensitive fish species in the Virgin River and 
associated tributaries would be guided by the 
1995 Virgin River Fishes Recovery Plan and the 
1 995 Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement 
and Strategy. Implementation of the plan and 
the strategy has been underway since their 
respective approvals and would continue in col- 
laboration with the Utah DWR, the FWS, the 
Washington County Water Conservancy District, 
and other interested local, state, and federal 
entities. The overriding goal is to achieve recov- 
ery of the species to allow downlisting and 
eventual delisting of the two endangered fish 
and to eliminate the need for listing of the 



spinedace. Objectives include eliminating sig- 
nificant threats to the fish and their habitats and 
to stabilize and enhance specific reaches of 
occupied and historic habitat. BLM would pro- 
vide appropriate support to active partners in 
the Virgin River Fishes Recovery Team in imple- 
menting the following measures called for in the 
plans: 

• Monitor fish populations and 
habitat conditions 

• Eradicate exotic fish species in 
selected reaches 

• Reintroduce desired native fish species 

• Restore degraded habitats 

• implement controls over conflicting land use 

• Reestablish instream population maintenance 
flows through agreements and other 
appropriate mechanisms 

BLM would continue to work with local, state, 
and federal partners in formulating and analyz- 
ing the proposed Virgin River Management Plan 
and the proposed Virgin River Basin Integrated 
Resource Management and Recovery Program. 
These plans would be designed to promote joint 
planning and collaboration among active stake- 
holders and management agencies in matters 
affecting the Virgin River in Utah, its major trib- 
utaries, special status fish species, and other 
resources dependent upon the river. 

BLM would implement protective measures 
described under sections of this Proposed Plan 
on Water Resources, Riparian Resources, 
Recreation, Off-FHighway Vehicle Management, 
Livestock Grazing Management, Lands, and 
Energy and Mineral Resources to protect and 
enhance viable fish habitats in the Virgin River, 
the Santa Clara River, LaVerkin Creek, Ash 
Creek, and the West Fork Beaver Dam Wash. 
The measures relate to improved water quality, 
floodplain protection, point and nonpoint 
source pollution abatement, riparian restoration, 
habitat consolidation, and management of 
potentially conflicting land uses including recre- 
ation, rights-of-way, off-road travel, grazing, and 
mineral development. 

Additional river habitat protection is provided 
by prescriptions for the proposed Santa Clara - 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2,30 



A P T E R 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



Gunlock, Santa Clara - Land Hill, and Lower 
Virgin River ACECs described in the section of 
this Proposed Plan on Special Emphasis Areas. 

BLM would seek to acquire nonpublic lands on 
the Virgin River between Quail Creek Reservoir 
and LaVerkin Creek in and adjacent to Zones 4 
and 5 of the Washington County HCP through 
exchange, purchase, or donation. Acquisition of 
such property would meet goals and commit- 
ments associated with the HCP to consolidate 
habitats for endangered fishes and other listed 
species in public ownership and allow for per- 
manent habitat preservation. 

Where proposed new rights-of-way or other per- 
mits cannot avoid location within fish habitats, 
their approval would be subject to necessary 
mitigating measures and consultation with the 
FWS. Where new road crossings are proposed, 
bridge or culvert installation could be required, 
where determined necessary, to allow continued 
passage of the fish. 

Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, 
and Mexican Spotted Owl 

BLM would continue to implement recovery 
plans for the federally-listed species and collab- 
orate with the Utah DWR and interested conser- 
vation groups in conducting inventories, protect- 
ing nest sites and aeries, and preserving associ- 
ated habitats. 

A fluid mineral leasing Category 2 seasonal stip- 
ulation would be applied to a 0.5 mile area 
around known active nest sites closing the lands 
to exploration and drilling for the following 
species: golden eagle (February 1 to June 30); 
peregrine falcon (March 15 to June 30); and the 
Mexican spotted owl (February 1 to August 31). 
These seasonal restrictions would also be 
applied to all authorizations for fuelwood per- 
mits, mineral materials sales, construction activ- 
ity, and competitive recreation permits issued for 
the lands involved. The bald eagle winters bul 
does not nest in this area. Prescriptions pro- 
posed for the HCP Reserve, the Canaan 
Mountain ACEC, and the Deep Creek Special 
Recreation Management Area would serve to 
protect nest sites and associated habitats for sev- 
eral sites in the resource area. 



Bald eagle protection would be afforded primar- 
ily through riparian habitat protection measures 
described in the section of this Proposed Plan 
on Riparian Resources. Proposals for new per- 
mitted actions that might impact wintering bald 
eagles roosting outside of riparian zones would 
be approved only after full mitigation is applied 
and consultation is completed with the FWS. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

As of the date of this publication, no critical 
habitat for the endangered Southwestern willow 
flycatcher has been designated in Utah, nor has 
a recovery plan been prepared by the FWS. 
BLM would collaborate with affected local, 
state, and federal partners in completing field 
inventories and other studies to establish habitat 
locations and requirements. 

BLM would protect potential flycatcher habitat 
through implementation of land use prescrip- 
tions for riparian resources described earlier in 
this Proposed Plan. Among other things, the 
prescriptions would allow no surface occupancy 
for fluid mineral leasing, limit off-road travel, 
discourage right-of-way construction, and pro- 
hibit sales of fuelwood and mineral materials. 
The prescriptions also call for retention and 
acquisition of prospective habitat. Where 
known active nest sites are located on public 
lands, BLM would implement seasonal closures 
for the period of April 1 to August 30 within 0.5 
mile of nests for discretionary permits authoriz- 
ing construction or other disruptive activity. 

In conjunction with affected partners and 
landowners, BLM would help identify desired 
plant communities needed to support viable fly- 
catcher habitat. Where consistent with FWS 
consultations, BLM would work with its partners 
in reestablishing desirable plant species, includ- 
ing willow and cottonwood, for long-term habi- 
tat enhancement and removal of undesired 
species in selected areas. 

Other Special Status Animal Species 

Overnight camping would not be allowed with- 
in 1 mile of the Fort Pearce Historic Site to pro- 
tect habitat important to the spotted bat. The 40 
acres surrounding the site would be further pro- 
tected by allowing no surface disturbance for 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.31 



CHAPTER 2 • PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



fluid mineral leasing activity and closing the 
lands to OHV use. Habitat outside of the area 
within the Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce ACEC 
would be further protected by restricting OHV 
use to designated roads and trails and restricting 
or closing mineral activity. Livestock grazing 
would be managed so as to expand and 
improve the Fort Pearce riparian area, which is 
essential to bat survival. Pesticide use would 
not be allowed within the riparian zone. 

Biological surveys would be conducted to iden- 
tify sensitive species occurrence, nesting sites 
(for the northern goshawk and ferruginous 
hawk), and special habitat requirements. Data 
gained from the surveys would be used by BLM, 
Utah DWR, and other affected partners to 
develop and implement recommendations for 
habitat management needed to maintain healthy 
populations of the species involved and reduce 
the need for additional listings. 

Livestock Grazing 
Management 

Because of their location and extent, public 
lands are key to the continuation of most live- 
stock grazing operations in Washington County. 
The lands typically support fall, winter, and 
spring grazing when pastures in higher eleva- 
tions on private or National Forest lands are 
unusable or inaccessible due to temperature and 
weather conditions. The Dixie Resource Area 
supports 1 1 grazing allotments on approxi- 
mately 560,000 acres. Nearly all authorizations 
are for cattle. Nearly half the allotments run 1 
head of livestock or less. Maintaining stable 
operations in the past 10 years has been espe- 
cially challenging. Livestock operations have 
been heavily impacted by urban growth, 
increased recreation and OHV use, periodic 
drought, increased vandalism, fluctuating mar- 
kets, increased price of feed, reduction of graz- 
ing privileges because of public land exchanges, 
and management constraints for protection of 
threatened or endangered species and other 
environmental values. 

Grazing management decisions for most allot- 
ments in the resource area were made in the 
Hot Desert Environmental Impact Statement 
(1979) and the Kanab/Escalante Environmental 



Impact Statement (1 980). Management objec- 
tives and allocations for the remaining five cus- 
todial allotments above Zion National Park were 
made in 1988. Progress in implementing the 
decisions was summarized in the 1988 Dixie 
Range Program Summary (USDI/BLM, 1988). In 
concert with these decisions, 77 allotment man- 
agement plans (AMPs) have now been complet- 
ed and implemented. No additional AMPs are 
currently scheduled. However, new AMPs 
could be developed and existing plans revised 
in accordance with the policies and prescrip- 
tions described in this section. 

AMPs were prepared where needed to accom- 
plish resource management objectives. 
Intensive AMPs which fully address resource 
conditions, goals and objectives, grazing sys- 
tems, range developments, monitoring systems, 
and evaluation have been implemented on 41 
allotments covering 68 percent of the resource 
area. Less intensive AMPs which address live- 
stock management goals, season of use, num- 
bers of livestock, kind of livestock, and, in some 
cases, pasture rotation or deferment have been 
implemented on 36 allotments covering 1 1 per- 
cent of the resource area. No plans have been 
developed for 33 allotments covering ten per- 
cent of the area. No grazing occurs on the 
remaining 1 1 percent of the resource area. 

Grazing authorizations would continue in 
accordance with the Grazing Summary Table in 
Appendix 5. 

BLM objectives for grazing management on 
public lands throughout Washington County 
would be to: 

- promote healthy, sustainable rangeland 
ecosystems that produce a wide range of 
public values such as wildlife habitat, 
livestock forage, recreation opportunities, 
clean water, and safe and functional 
watersheds; 

- restore and improve public rangelands to 
properly functioning condition, where 
needed; 

- provide for the sustainability of the west- 
ern livestock industry and communities 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT STATEMENT 

2.32 



CHAPTER 2 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



that are dependent upon productive, 
healthy rangelands; and 

- ensure that public land users and stake- 
holders have a meaningful voice in estab- 
lishing policy and managing public range- 
lands. 

After extensive public review and participation 
from diverse fields of expertise and interest, the 
Secretary of the Interior approved Standards for 
Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Crazing 
Management tor Public Lands in Utah on May 
20, 1 997 (see Appendix 3). To achieve the 
objectives stated above, BLM has integrated the 
standards into applicable portions of this 
Proposed Plan and would apply both the stan- 
dards and guidelines to its grazing management 
program throughout the resource area. In con- 
cert with livestock operators, other affected 
agencies, and interested publics, BLM would 
monitor key indicators addressed by the stan- 
dards and assess whether the standards are 
being met. Where it is determined that an allot- 
ment is not meeting a standard, BLM would 
work with affected partners to determine why 
the standard was not being achieved and pre- 
scribe actions that would ensure satisfactory 
progress. Existing grazing systems and practices 
would be modified where the assessment and 
monitoring strategy indicates livestock grazing is 
wholly or partly responsible. 

In consultation with affected operators, allot- 
ment categories would be reviewed and revised, 
where needed, to respond to changing resource 
conditions. 

Recognizing that extensive land exchanges and 
conveyances out of public ownership are highly 
disruptive to the stability of affected grazing 
operations, BLM would generally retain public 
lands in solidly blocked public lands areas west 
of St. George City, the Shivwits Indian 
Reservation, and the Gunlock road. Exceptions 
would be considered where needed to satisfy 
existing exchange agreements, to meet essential 
public or municipal purposes, or to accomplish 
overriding resource management objectives. 
Public land retention guidelines for special 
management areas throughout the remainder of 
the resource area are described in the sections 



of this plan that address each management area. 
Affected grazing operators would be given a 
minimum of 2 years notification prior to the 
cancellation of all or part of a grazing lease or 
permit due to the disposition of public lands. 

Special emphasis would be placed on assessing 
potential conflicts between livestock grazing 
and deer winter range on 35,325 acres within 
the Pintura, Minera, Gunlock, Washington, Red 
Cliffs, and Yellow Knolls allotments. Grazing 
systems, season of use, numbers of livestock, 
and/or allotment categories could be adjusted if 
monitoring and assessments show that current 
grazing practices are impeding the achievement 
of goals for properly functioning habitats. 
Because grazing on all or portions of the Red 
Cliffs, Washington, and Yellow Knolls allotments 
is scheduled for retirement under prescriptions 
for the Washington County HCP, potential con- 
flict throughout much of this area would be 
eliminated. 

Within desert tortoise critical habitats, grazing 
permits would be permanently retired on the 
Alger Hollow, Red Cliffs, Yellow Knolls, and 
Washington allotments in accordance with HCP 
recommendations. In accordance with current 
biological opinions of the FWS, spring grazing 
after March 31 would not be authorized in 
those portions of Sandstone Mountain and Sand 
Hill allotments in Zone 4 of the HCP Reserve to 
reduce potential conflicts during the tortoise 
active season. Grazing permits in these allot- 
ments could also be retired where permittees 
choose to relinquish them. Spring grazing 
would also be eliminated on portions of the 
Beaver Dam Slope, Castle Cliffs, and Scarecrow 
Peak allotments within the Beaver Dam Slope 
ACEC to reduce potential conflicts outside of 
the three special management areas (see Map 
2.9). Winter grazing would continue to be 
authorized in these allotments from November 1 
to March 15. Otherwise, grazing would be 
managed in accordance with applicable por- 
tions of the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan, 
BLM's Rangewide Desert Tortoise Plan, the 
Washington County HCP, and the Beaver Dam 
Slope coordinated ACEC. 

Conversions of kinds of livestock from cattle to 
sheep would not be allowed where BLM in con- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.33 



CHAPTER 2 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



sultation with the Utah DWR determined that 
such would jeopardize the health or viability of 
existing herds of desert bighorn sheep in the 
Beaver Dam Mountains. 

To promote cost effective management, grazing 
transfers resulting in fragmentation of allotments 
or increased numbers of permittees with smaller 
grazing authorizations would not be approved 
unless necessary to meet overriding manage- 
ment objectives. 

Where they are meeting approved goals and 
applicable standards and guidelines, existing 
vegetation treatments would be maintained in 
the Central, Dagget Flat, Desert Inn, 
Gooseberry, Jackson Wash, Little Creek, Pintura, 
Twin Peaks, Veyo, and Black Ridge allotments. 
BLM would seek to maintain forage production 
in these areas between 3 and 7 acres per animal 
unit month. Treatment areas would be placed 
in VRM Class III or IV. Where consistent with 
the objectives of this Proposed Plan, fire rehabil- 
itation projects would be maintained to achieve 
desired plant communities for livestock and 
wildlife forage and watershed protection. 

Rangeland projects could be developed where 
assessments show the need to improve livestock 
management by establishing proper livestock 
control or distribution. Projects could include 
installation of cattle guards, development or 
reconstruction of water sources, and construc- 
tion of drift or pasture fences. New vegetation 
treatments developed in accordance with 
applicable standards and guidelines could be 
employed in suitable habitats where needed to 
increase forage for livestock, wildlife, and other 
resource purposes. Methods for completing 
land treatments are described and analyzed in 
the Final Environmental Impact Statement for 
Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in the 13 
Western States (USDI/BLM, 1991). 

Public lands within the following allotments or 
pastures are permanently closed to grazing for 
resource or administrative purposes. 
Administrative closures occur where poor land 
configuration, limited size, lack of access or 
water, or the cost of needed range developments 
make grazing authorizations impractical. 
Where such factors are determined to make 
grazing impractical on other pastures or splinter 



allotments, BLM would consider implementa- 
tion of similar closures after appropriate analysis 
and public review. 

• Rockville Allotment - administrative 

• Highway Pasture/New Harmony Allotment 
- administrative 

• Upper South Creek Allotment 
resource/administrative 

• Allotments retired within the Washington 
County HCP Reserve - resource 

• Fenced portion of the Woodbury Desert 
Study Area - resource 

The following guidelines would be applied to 
grazing management in order to help achieve 
approved standards on public lands within 
Washington County; 

1. Grazing management practices would be 
implemented that: 

- maintain sufficient residual vegetation and 
litter on both upland and riparian sites to 
protect the soil from wind and water ero- 
sion and support ecological functions; 

- promote attainment or maintenance of 
proper functioning condition riparian/wet- 
land areas, appropriate stream channel 
morphology, desired soil permeability and 
infiltration, and appropriate soil condi- 
tions and kinds and amounts of plants 
and animals to support the hydrologic 
cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow; 

- meet the physiological requirements of 
desired plants and facilitate reproduction 
and maintenance of desired plants to the 
extent natural conditions allow; 

- maintain viable and diverse populations 
of plants and animals appropriate for the 
site; 

- provide or improve, within the limits of 
site potentials, habitat for threatened or 
endangered species; 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL E N V I K O N M E N TA L IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.34 



C H AFTER 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



- avoid grazing management conflicts with 
other species that have the potential of 
becoming protected or special status 
species; 

- encourage innovation, experimentation, 
and the ultimate development of alterna- 
tives to improve rangeland management 
practices; and 

- give priority to rangeland improvement 
practices and land treatments that offer 
the best opportunity for achieving the 
standards. 

2. Spring and seep developments would be 
designed and constructed to protect ecological 
processes and functions and improve livestock 
and wildlife distribution. 

3. New rangeland projects for grazing would 
be constructed in a manner consistent with the 
standards. Considering economic circum- 
stances and site limitations, existing rangeland 
projects and facilities that conflict with the 
achievement or maintenance of the standards 
would be relocated and/or modified. 

4. Livestock salt blocks and other nutritional 
supplements would be located away from ripari- 
an/wetland areas or other permanently located 
or other natural water sources. BLM would 
encourage that the locations of these supple- 
ments be moved every year. 

5. The use and perpetuation of native plant 
species would be emphasized. However, when 
restoring or rehabilitating disturbed or degraded 
rangelands, nonintrusive, non-native plant 
species are appropriate for use where native 
species (a) are not available, (b) are not eco- 
nomically feasible, (c) cannot achieve ecologi- 
cal objectives as well as non-native species, 
and/or (d) cannot compete with already estab- 
lished non-native species. 

6. When rangeland manipulations are neces- 
sary, the best management practices, including 
biological processes, fire, and intensive grazing, 
would be utilized prior to the use of chemical 
or mechanical manipulations. 

7. When establishing grazing practices and 
rangeland improvements, the quality of the out- 



door recreation experience would be consid- 
ered. Aesthetic and scenic values, water, camp- 
sites, and opportunities for solitude would be 
among those considerations. 

8. Feeding of hay and other harvested forage 
(which does not refer to miscellaneous salt, pro- 
tein, and other supplements) for the purpose of 
substituting for inadequate natural forage would 
not be conducted on public lands other than in 
(a) emergency situations where no other 
resource exists and animal survival is in jeop- 
ardy, or (b) situations where the Authorized 
Officer determines such a practice would assist 
in meeting a standard or attaining a manage- 
ment objective. 

9. In order to eliminate, minimize, or limit the 
spread of noxious weeds, (a) only hay cubes, 
hay pellets, or certified weed-free hay would be 
fed on public lands, and (b) reasonable adjust- 
ments in grazing methods, methods of transport, 
and animal husbandry practices would be 
applied. 

10. To avoid contamination of water sources 
and inadvertent damage to nontarget species, 
aerial application of pesticides would not be 
allowed within 100 feet of a riparian/wetland 
area unless the product is registered for such use 
by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

n . On rangelands where a standard is not 
being met and conditions are moving toward 
meeting the standard, grazing may be allowed 
to continue. On lands where a standard is not 
being met, conditions are not improving toward 
meeting the standard or other management 
objectives, and livestock is deemed responsible, 
administrative action would be taken by the 
Authorized Officer pursuant to 43 CFR 
4180.2(c). 

12. Where it can be determined that more than 
one kind of grazing animal is responsible for 
failure to achieve a standard and adjustments in 
management are required, those adjustments 
would be made to each kind of animal, based 
on interagency cooperation as needed, in pro- 
portion to their degree of responsibility. 

13. Rangelands that have been burned, reseed- 
ed, or otherwise treated to alter vegetative com- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.35 



C H A P T E R 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



position would be closed to livestock grazing as 
follows: (a) burned rangelands, whether by wild- 
fire or prescribed burning, would be ungrazed 
for a minimum of one complete growing season 
following the burn, and (b) rangelands that have 
been reseeded or otherwise chemically or 
mechanically treated would be ungrazed for a 
minimum of two complete growing seasons fol- 
lowing treatment. 

14. Conversions in kind of livestock (such as 
from sheep to cattle) would be analyzed in light 
of rangeland health standards. Where such con- 
versions are not adverse to achieving a standard 
or they are not in conflict with BLM land use 
plans, the conversion would be allowed. 

Forestry Management 

Public lands administered by BLM in 
Washington County do not support commercial 
quantities of forest resources. Nonetheless, the 
lands do provide harvestable woodland prod- 
ucts for fuelwood, fence posts, seeds, pinon 
nuts, and Christmas trees. About 205,800 acres 
of pinyon-juniper woodlands occur on public 
lands in the county. BLM's objective for forestry 
management is to provide woodland products 
on a sustained yield basis to meet local needs 
where such use does not limit the accomplish- 



ment of goals for the management of other 
important resources. Where feasible, harvest of 
forest products would be encouraged in areas of 
proposed or existing vegetative treatments to 
lessen the need for additional treatment or land 
disturbance. 

Noncommercial fuelwood harvest of up to 
4,100 cords of dead and downed pinyon and 
juniper trees would be allowed on public lands 
except in closed areas depicted in Table 2-8. 
Harvest areas are shown on Map 2.10. 
Seasonal restrictions would be applied to deer 
winter range and elk calving areas. Specific 
harvest areas would be identified on permits 
issued for such purposes. 

A maximum of 500 noncommercial Christmas 
tree permits per year would be allowed. 
Additional trees could be offered for sale in 
areas where thinning would meet vegetation 
management objectives. Christmas tree sales 
would not be permitted in areas closed to fuel- 
wood sales as depicted in Table 2-8. Specific 
Christmas tree sales areas may be designated 
based on additional site specific analysis. 

Harvesting of trees other than pinyon or juniper 
would not be allowed unless necessary for thin- 
ning, salvage, or meeting other approved man- 
agement objectives. 



Table 2-8 • Fuelwood Harvest Area Designations 



ACRES 



Open to Fuelwood Harvest 

Seasonal Restrictions on Fuelwood Harvest 

Mule Deer Winter Range closed November 1 to April 1 5 
Elk Calving Areas closed May 1 to July 30 

Closed to Fuelwood Harvest 

Washington County HCP Reserve 

Red Cliffs and Baker Dam Recreation Areas 

OHV Closed Areas (See Table 2-10) 

Proposed ACECs (except for Little Creek Mountain Proposed ACEC 

and lower portion of Upper Beaver Dam Wash Proposed ACEC 
Riparian Areas 

Smithsonian Butte National Back Country Byway (within 1/2 mile radius) 
River segments with a tentative classification of Wild, 

proposed as suitable for Congressional NWSRS designation 
Threatened and Endangered Plant and Animal Species Habitat 
Candidate Plant and Animal Species Habitat 
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness Area 



126,192 
28,530 

51,086 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.36 



CHAPTER 2 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



A maximum of 1 ,200 cords per year of green 
fuelwood would be available for noncommer- 
cial harvest in designated areas on 34,080 
acres. Seasonal restrictions on cutting from 
November 1 to April 15 would be placed on 
7,500 acres of crucial deer winter range. 
Harvest would be approved only where sale 
areas have been marked on the ground. 

Tree thinning permits or contracts could be 
allowed to facilitate a prescribed burn on 500 
acres of the Potters Peak wildlife vegetation 
treatment project. Sales of green fuelwood 
could be allowed within other vegetation treat- 
ment areas or designated pinyon/juniper areas 
to facilitate achievement of desired vegetation 
composition. All such sales would be subject to 
further site specific analysis and would be 
designed to meet objectives for wildlife and 
watershed management. 

Post permits would be issued for up to 1,600 
posts in three specific cutting areas on 4,070 
acres depicted on Map 2.10. 

On-site use of dead and down fuelwood for 
campfires would be allowed except where oth- 
erwise prohibited by planning decision or per- 
mit stipulations. 

Seed harvests would be authorized under permit 
for selected grasses, forbs, and shrubs but not 
for cacti, yucca, or special status plant species 
listed under state or federal rules. Harvest 
would be allowed only by hand in areas outside 
of critical habitats, areas of critical environmen- 
tal concern (ACECs), designated wilderness, 
wild and scenic rivers and study areas, recre- 
ation sites and campgrounds, areas undergoing 
vegetation rehabilitation, and highway rights-of- 
way. No more than 25 percent of the seed 
available in any one area could be harvested. 

Recreation 

Public lands in Washington County are seeing 
unprecedented growth in a wide array of recre- 
ation uses (Utah SCORP, 1 992). Part of the 
growth is occurring because of increased 
demands from the rapidly growing population in 
the St. George area and part from increased visi- 
tation from areas outside of the county includ- 



ing Clark County, Nevada, Utah's Wasatch 
Front, and California. Year-round accessibility, 
spectacular scenery, and proximity to major 
recreation destinations such as Zion National 
Park, the Pine Valley Mountains, and Snow 
Canyon State Park draw many of the visitors. 
Changing recreation preferences, opportunities, 
and technologies for such activities as motor- 
ized recreation, rock climbing, mountain biking, 
and other intensive uses are also influencing the 
number and types of users. This trend poses a 
challenge to BLM's traditional recreation niche 
which mainly entails primitive and dispersed 
experiences in open landscapes that character- 
ize most public lands in the west. Developed 
recreation sites on state or federal lands are fre- 
quently at or above capacity during peak sea- 
sons of the year. As a result, open public lands 
are increasingly used to accommodate recre- 
ationists turned away at developed facilities or 
who wish to enjoy a less crowded and more dis- 
persed experience. Statewide user surveys by 
the Utah Department of Natural Resources also 
reveal that despite the increase in recreation 
users, widespread desire exists for more quiet 
and seclusion in outdoor settings (Utah SCORP, 
1992). 

With the sharp growth has come an increase in 
conflicts between recreationists and established 
user groups, adjacent landowners, and many 
fragile resources that occur within Washington 
County. BLM's objective for recreation manage- 
ment would be to provide an array of quality 
recreation experiences within the agency's 
capability and logical recreation niche to meet 
the reasonable needs and expectations of local 
residents and visitors from outside the area. 
Because the fiscal and staffing resources avail- 
able to BLM are likely to remain inadequate to 
fully accomplish this objective, BLM would use 
innovative partnerships, pursue grant monies, 
and work with volunteers, organized user 
groups, and other recreation providers in devel- 
oping and managing selected recreation oppor- 
tunities on the public lands. In managing the 
overall recreation program, BLM would seek to: 

- establish collaborative partnerships with 
state and local governments, Indian tribes, 
other federal agencies, the private sector, 
and interested organizations in develop- 
ing recreational plans and opportunities. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.37 



CHAPTER 2 « PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEME N T 



maintaining facilities, and conducting 
public information and education pro- 
grams; 

- reduce potential conflicts between various 
recreation groups, raise public awareness 
of impacts of increased recreation use on 
established user groups and adjacent 
landowners, and promote outdoor ethics 
that instill respect for property and natural 
resources; 

- eliminate unacceptable impacts to impor- 
tant and at risk resources on public lands 
including wildlife habitats, listed and sen- 
sitive species, riparian areas, watersheds, 
fragile soils, water quality, cultural 
resources, wilderness values, and the 
spectacular scenery throughout 
Washington County; and 

- in accordance with federally-approved 
programs and guidelines, establish rea- 
sonable and appropriate fees that can be 
returned to the local area to maintain 
public facilities and provide essential 
recreation information to the using public. 

Public lands in Washington County would gen- 
erally remain open to most forms of outdoor 
recreation including, but not limited to, hiking, 
touring, camping, hunting, picnicking, sightsee- 
ing, rock hounding, mountain biking, equestrian 
use, swimming, fishing, rafting/kayaking, rock 
climbing, target shooting, and various forms of 
motorized recreation except as otherwise pre- 
scribed in the following sections. Prescriptions 
for off-road travel are described separately in the 
section on Off-Highway Vehicle Management. 
Activities on public lands within incorporated 
city limits such as shooting, camping, or com- 
mercial permits could be further constrained by 
applicable city ordinances designed to protect 
public health, safety, and welfare. 

Extensive Recreation 
Management Areas 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas are 
those public land areas where recreation man- 
agement is only one of several management 
programs applied to the land and where recre- 



ation is typically extensive and unstructured in 
character. Such areas may contain occasional 
recreation sites such as the Baker Dam or Red 
Cliffs facilities. Emphasis would be placed on 
dispersed recreation, trail development, signing, 
maintenance of primitive and semiprimitive 
characteristics, management or abatement of 
natural and man-made hazards, and protection 
of resources and sites of recreational interest. 

A total of 501 ,630 acres of public land in the 
county fall within Extensive Recreation 
Management Areas. This includes the designat- 
ed Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness Area 
which would no longer be classified as a 
Special Recreation Management Area because 
of provisions in the Paiute and Beaver Dam 
Mountains Wilderness Management Plan 
(1987). 

BLM would work collaboratively with affected 
user groups and organizations, state and local 
officials, and other interested parties in identify- 
ing existing and potential trails and use areas to 
meet public needs for hiking, mountain biking, 
rock climbing, and equestrian use. Where 
appropriate, BLM would enter into cooperative 
agreements with applicable partners to plan for, 
implement, and maintain such areas. Site stew- 
ard programs could also be employed to put 
volunteers on the ground to monitor use and 
resource conditions and provide assistance for 
sign installation and maintenance, visitor infor- 
mation, and detection of conflicts or violations. 
Where appropriate, BLM would work with part- 
ners to map and profile approved trails and 
develop guides to help users remain safe, well- 
prepared, and informed of special conditions 
needed to protect sensitive resources. 

BLM would collaborate with the Utah 
Department of Transportation and other affected 
agencies in making public lands available for a 
bikeway within the right-of-way of portions of 
Utah Highway 18 between Central and St. 
George. 

Mountain bike use on public lands would be 
subject to the open, limited, and closed desig- 
nations described in Table 2-9 and shown on 
Map 2.1 1 . Closures or limitations reflect the 
minimum constraints necessary to protect sensi- 
tive resources from impacts of sustained biking 
use over many years. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL E N V I R O N M E N TA L IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.38 



CHAPTER 2 • PROPOSED 


RESOURCE 


MANAGEMENT 




Table 2-9 • Mountain Bike Use Designations 


TOTAL ACRES 



Open to Fuelwood Harvest 
Open to Mountain Bike Use 

Open for Use on Existing Roads and Trails 

Riparian Areas 



126,192 

421,852 

3,163 



Open for Use on Designated Roads and Trails 

Upper Beaver Dam Wasii ACEC (in part) 

Beaver Dam Slope ACEC 

Red Bluff ACEC 

Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce ACEC 

Lower Virgin River Proposed ACEC 

Santa Clara River-Gunlock ACEC 

Santa Clara River-Land Hill ACEC 

Washington County HCP Reserve (in part) 

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Habitat 

Candidate Species Plant Habitat 

Portions of the riparian areas along the Virgin River near Virgin and Gral'ton 

Rockville Bench 

Red Cliffs and Baker Dam Recreation Areas 



112,286 



Closed to Mountain Bike Use 

ROS Primitive Areas (except the Volcano Knoll crossing) 
River segments with a tentative classification of Wild, 

proposed as suitable for Congressional NWSRS designation 
Ripple Arch 
Dinosaur Trackway 
Watchman Area 
Fort Pearce Historical Site 
Red Mountain ACEC 
Canaan Mountain ACEC 
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness Area 



91,704 



Dispersed camping in undeveloped areas would 
be allowed in accordance with the public 
notice of December 14, 1992 (Federal Register, 
Vol. 57, No. 240, p. 59121), where the lands 
are not otherwise closed to such use. To pre- 
vent degradation of natural resources and the 
use of public lands for unauthorized occupancy, 
dispersed camping by any person or group of 
persons would be limited to 14 days within a 
30-mile radius in a 28-day period. 

Camping areas for long-term winter visitors 
would not be established in the resource area. 



Permanent funding for management of such 
areas is lacking and suitable lands free of 
impacts to sensitive resources and existing land 
uses are generally not available. Private facili- 
ties for such purposes exist throughout 
Washington County. BLM would, however, pro- 
vide public outreach and education for such 
user groups through interpretive lectures, dis- 
plays, media presentations, user guides, and 
other materials produced in collaboration with 
many private, local, and state representatives 
and organizations interested in public land 
resources and issues. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.39 



C H A P T E 



RQPQSED RESOURCE MANAGE M E N T 



Facilities for camping, sanitation, and picnici<ing 
at the Baker Dam and l^ed Cliffs Recreation 
Areas would be maintained and upgraded as 
needed to achieve management objectives for 
safety, resource protection, and quality recre- 
ational experiences. 

To protect public investments and facilities from 
incompatible disturbance, conveyance, or activ- 
ities, the following prescriptions would be 
applied to developed recreation sites at Baker 
Dam and Red Cliffs: 

• BLM would seek to withdraw the sites 
from mining location (290 and 1,085 
acres respectively). 

• The areas would be closed to mineral 
materials and fuelwood sales. 

• Category 3 (NSO) stipulations would be 
applied to the areas for fluid mineral leas- 
ing. 

• Motorized vehicle and mountain biking 
use would be allowed on designated 
roads and trails only. 

BLM would work with its local and state part- 
ners in promoting public education on outdoor 
ethics including the Leave No Trace program to 
foster a heightened awareness of the need to 
protect public resources from indiscriminate 
use. 

Groups of more than 75 persons would be 
required to obtain a letter of authorization prior 
to camping on undeveloped public lands except 
where more restrictive rules apply. Such groups 
would be required to provide their own portable 
sanitary facilities, properly dispose of garbage, 
and comply with other good sense rules for 
public safety and protecting the land. 

To improve sanitation, reduce overcrowding, 
enhance public safety, restore degraded areas, 
and minimize impacts to intermingled private 
lands, camping in undeveloped areas would be 
prohibited up to 1 mile from the Baker Dam 
and Red Cliffs Recreation Sites. Where neces- 
sary, public land boundaries would be marked 
to assist visitors in identifying adjacent private 
property. 



Camping would be prohibited along the 
Smithsonian Butte National Back Country 
Byway for a distance of 0.5 miles on either side 
of the road to preserve the scenic and back- 
country experience for visitors. For this same 
reason, the 0.5 mile corridor along the Byway 
would be designated a right-of-way avoidance 
area, placed in fluid mineral leasing Category 3 
(NSO), closed to fuelwood sales, and designated 
a VRM Class II area. 

In collaboration with the Utah DWR, BLM 
would restrict camping from October 15 to 
November 1 5 within 0.25 mile of all water 
catchments, wildlife guzzlers, and the 12 
springs located west of the Santa Clara River as 
described under the section on Fish and Wildlife 
Habitat. This seasonal restriction is needed to 
protect wildlife access to these critical water 
sources during the fall big game hunting season. 

BLM would work with state and local officials, 
affected permittees, and other interested parties 
in evaluating and implementing appropriate clo- 
sures, seasonal use restrictions, rotation strate- 
gies, and other measures along key, undevel- 
oped riparian areas currently experiencing 
heavy impacts from camping and recreation 
use. The areas include, but are not limited to, 
the Santa Clara River below Gunlock and at 
Land Hill and the Virgin River near Grafton. 
Such measures would be needed to allow for 
revegetation, reduce overcrowding, and 
eliminate growing sanitation and public safety 
problems. 

Lands in a primitive recreation opportunity 
spectrum (ROS) class, including portions of the 
Beartrap Canyon, Taylor Creek Canyon, 
LaVerkin Creek Canyon, and Cottonwood 
Canyon areas, would be managed to preserve 
primitive recreation opportunities. For this rea- 
son, they would be placed in a fluid mineral 
leasing Category 3 (NSO), designated as rights- 
of-way avoidance areas, closed to off-road trav- 
el, and closed to mineral materials and fuel- 
wood sales. 

BLM would continue to work collaboratively 
with its many private, local, state, federal, and 
Indian partners in developing and implementing 
recreation opportunities along the Virgin and 
Santa Clara Rivers. Among other things, this 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.40 



CHAPTER 2 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MAN A CEMENT 



would include the creation of a 48-mile long, 
multiuser trail system and greenway along the 
river corridors between Zion National Park and 
Gunlock Reservoir. BLM would make selected 
lands available for trails, trailheads, interpretive 
sites, and other related facilities. 

BLM would consider development of the follow- 
ing management activities and opportunities on 
public lands. Actual implementation would not 
take place unless site-specific planning is com- 
pleted and necessary partners and resources 
become availaijle. Strategies and funding for 
permanent maintenance of proposed facilities 
would need to be in place before BLM could 
act on development plans. 

• BLM would work with HOP partners and 
interested user groups in identifying, des- 
ignating, and maintaining hiking, biking, 
and equestrian trails, trailheads, and rock 
climbing areas in the HCP Reserve. Trail 
and area locations and use prescriptions 
would be designed to avoid negative 
impacts to the sensitive resources being 
managed in the reserve. 

• Camping facilities, special use areas, or 
water-based recreation opportunities 
could be developed in cooperation with 
state and local governments on or adja- 
cent to proposed or existing reservoirs 
where it is determined that such were 
consistent with reservoir purposes and 
objectives for land use in the surrounding 
area. 

• Bloomington Cave would be monitored 
periodically and appropriate guidelines 
implemented to provide for visitor safety 
and protection of cave resources. 

• BLM would work collaboratively with 
local, state, and federal partners including 
BLM units in adjacent areas to develop 
interpretive displays with improved access 
along major tourist routes to increase 
public awareness and provide an 
enhanced recreation experience relating 
to significant historical and natural fea- 
tures. Such would include a partnership 
with the Vermillion Cliffs Highway initia- 
tive for northwest Arizona and southwest 
Utah. 



• In collaboration with local communities, 
historical associations, and interested gov- 
ernment agencies, BLM would assist in 
marking and signing portions of the 
Spanish Trail that cross public lands in the 
resource area. 

• in collaboration with local communities, 
organizations, and volunteer groups, 
BLM would enter into cooperative agree- 
ments to establish collection boxes out- 
side of regular fee areas to receive volun- 
tary donations from members of the using 
public at selected special use areas and 
interpretive sites to be applied to the cost 
of maintenance and providing public 
information. 

• Where developed recreation facilities are 
maintained or proposed, BLM would con- 
sider the use of concessionaire manage- 
ment to provide improved visitor services 
while minimizing the need for appropriat- 
ed funds. 

Special Recreation 
Management Areas 

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) 
are well-defined land units that support a com- 
bination of natural features that make them 
attractive and manageable for interrelated recre- 
ation opportunities on a sustained basis. 
Investment and levels of management are typi- 
cally higher than what is required across most of 
the Extensive Recreation Management Areas in 
this resource area. Emphasis would be placed 
on maintaining specific features or recreation 
opportunities that make them unique or particu- 
larly desirable to recreationists and other mem- 
bers of the public. 

Four new SRMAs are proposed under this plan 
including Sand Mountain, Red Mountain/Santa 
Clara, Deep Creek, and LaVerkin Creek/Black 
Ridge. Canaan Mountain would continue to be 
managed as an SRMA. The SRMAs cover 
127,375 acres and are depicted on Map 2.12. 
BLM would prepare recreation management 
plans for each SRMA. The SRMAs are described 
below. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.41 



CHAPTER 2 • PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



Lands classified as primitive under the recre- 
ation opportunity spectrum, including portions 
of the Canaan Mountain, Red Mountain, 
LaVerkin Creel</Black Ridge, and Deep Creek 
SRMAs, would be managed to preserve primi- 
tive recreation opportunities. For this reason, 
they would be placed in a fluid mineral leasing 
Category 3 (NSO), designated as rights-of-way 
avoidance areas, closed to off-road travel for 
motorized vehicles and mountain bikes, and 
closed to mineral materials and fuelwood sales. 
In such areas, mining plans of operation would 
be required for all mining activity beyond 
casual use. 

1. Sand Mountain SRMA: 

40,725 acres of public land 

Main Attractions 

Sand dune OHV riding area. Dinosaur Trackway 
paleontologic site. Fort Pearce historic site, his- 
toric trails, Warner Valley Road. 

Main Recreation Activities 

OHV riding and competitive events, horseback 
riding, scenic driving and viewing, visiting his- 
toric and paleontologic sites, natural history 
education, semiprimitive recreation, undevel- 
oped camping, picnicking, guided tours, and 
recreation instruction! 



consider entering into a cooperative man- 
agement agreement with the Utah 
Division of Parks and Recreation that 
would allow State Park officials to exer- 
cise day-to-day management of access 
and recreation on selected public lands 
surrounding the proposed reservoir and 
on Sand Mountain. Such would be 
designed to achieve consistent manage- 
ment, law enforcement, user fees, and vis- 
itor services. Leases or conveyances 
under the Recreation and Public Purposes 
Act could be considered where high 
amounts of capital investment are 
involved for campgrounds and related 
facilities. 

BLM would work with user groups and 
other interested parties to identify and, 
where appropriate, develop OHV trail 
systems that would connect with similar 
trail systems and suitable roads in 
Arizona. One or more loops would con- 
tinue to be authorized for yearly competi- 
tive events. Where needed to minimize 
cumulative impacts to soils and other 
resources, competitive events would be 
rotated amongst established courses in 
collaboration with the BLM Arizona Strip 
Field Office. 



Management Prescriptions 

BLM proposes to implement the following pre- 
scriptions relating to recreation management 
within the area. Where further analysis, plan- 
ning, or resources are required, actual develop- 
ment or implementation would not take place 
until such analysis is completed and resources 
become available. 



BLM would work with interested user 
groups to identify, develop, and maintain 
up to 50 miles of equestrian trails near 
Sand Mountain to meet growing demands 
for such use. Organized events would be 
managed under terms designed to avoid 
sensitive resources and conflicts with 
OHV use. 



BLM would work with local and state 
agencies in developing recreation plans 
for lands surrounding the proposed Sand 
Hollow reservoir once it is constructed. 
Such plans could provide for staging 
areas, parking, information displays, and 
other visitor facilities needed to accom- 
modate increased recreation and OHV 
use expected to occur throughout the 
immediate area. 



Generally, lands within this SRMA not 
already identified in this Proposed Plan 
for disposal or included in current 
exchange agreements would be main- 
tained in public ownership to provide 
long-term stability for user groups such as 
the OHV community who, as a result of 
urbanization and land use restrictions, 
have lost much of their traditional open 
use areas. 



• Where consistent with the goals and 
policies of both agencies, BLM would 



The Fort Pearce and Honeymoon Trail his- 
toric sites would be maintained and 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.42 



CHAPTER 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



explained through appropriate interpretive 
displays for public enjoyment and 
education. 

• The Dinosaur Trackway paleontological 
site, visitor parking area, and interpretive 
signs would be maintained to enhance 
site security and public education. 

• Where previously constructed monuments 
are missing or in disrepair, BLM would 
work with local and state historical asso- 
ciations and other interested parties to 
remark selected portions of the 
Dominguez-Escalante historic trail. 

• No camping would be authorized within 
1 mile of Fort Pearce or the Dinosaur 
Trackway to protect the sites from exces- 
sive human encroachment and to protect 
sensitive riparian values and wildlife habi- 
tat along the Fort Pearce Wash. Both sites 
(40 acres each) would be closed to motor- 
ized travel to protect the historic structure 
and the dinosaur tracks. 

• BLM would seek to obtain a 4,240-acre 
mineral withdrawal for the Dinosaur 
Trackway and the Warner Ridge/Fort 
Pearce ACEC to protect listed species 
habitat and important historical and pale- 
ontological sites from mining develop- 
ment. Until such time as a withdrawal is 
in place, mining plans of operation would 
be required to afford a minimum level of 
protection. These sites would also be 
closed to mineral materials sales and 
placed in a fluid mineral leasing Category 
3 (NSO). 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Setting 

Semiprimitive motorized (39,940 acres), rural 
(785 acres) 

2. Red Mountain/Santa Clara SRMA: 

23,725 acres of public land 

Main Attractions 

Red Mountain, outstanding geological features 
and scenery, Santa Clara River, petroglyphs. 

Main Recreation Activities 

Primitive and semiprimitive motorized recre- 



ation, hiking, rock climbing, sightseeing, tour- 
ing, stream-based recreation, outdoor photogra- 
phy, picnicking, undeveloped camping, horse- 
back riding, small game hunting, and viewing 
petroglyphs. 

Management Prescriptions 

BLM proposes to implement the following pre- 
scriptions relating to recreation management 
within the area. Where further analysis, plan- 
ning, or resources are required, actual develop- 
ment or implementation would not take place 
until such analysis is completed and resources 
become available. 

• The Red Mountain trail head and hiking 
trail off of Utah FHighway 18 north of 
Snow Canyon State Park would be 
improved and maintained in partnership 
with interested agencies or user groups. 

® BLM would work with affected user 
groups, landowners, and local and state 
agencies to identify, develop, and main- 
tain a 60-mile equestrian trail near Red 
Mountain. Organized events would be 
managed under terms designed to avoid 
impacts to sensitive resources in the vicin- 
ity of the trail. 

• BLM would consider entering into coop- 
erative management agreements with the 
Utah Division of Parks and Recreation 
that would allow Snow Canyon State Park 
officials to exercise day-to-day manage- 
ment of access and recreation on public 
lands immediately to the north and west 
of Snow Canyon State Park and in 
Paradise Canyon on the southeast to pro- 
tect important resources and provide law 
enforcement and visitor services. The 
decisions of this Proposed Plan are 
intended to complement the goals, 
objectives, and decisions of the 1998 
Snow Canyon State Park Resource 
Management Plan. Among other things, 
such agreements could provide for joint 
development of hiking, biking, and eques- 
trian trails and use areas for rock climbing 
and concessionaire services. Moreover, 
coordinated management, signing, user 
fees, interpretive programs, and land use 
prescriptions could be developed and 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.43 



CHAPTER 2 » PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



employed to bring consistency for recre- 
ationists using botin state and federal lands 
in this area. 

• Management of recreation activities with- 
in those portions of the SRMA that over- 
lap the Washington County HCP Reserve 
would conform to approved decisions of 
the HCP and any subsequent activity level 
plans for the protection of desert tortoises, 
their habitat, and other natural features. 

• Commercial use on Red Mountain would 
be limited to groups of 12 or less persons 
per trip with no more than three commer- 
cial permittees using an area at one time 
to reduce user impacts on the natural val- 
ues of the area. For the same reason, 
pack animals would be limited to 15 head 
per trip. Weed-free hay for pack animals 
would be required of the permittees to 
prevent the further spread of invasive 
weeds. Additional limits on the amount 
of use would be developed, as needed, to 
maintain important resource values within 
sensitive parts of the SRMA. 

• BLM would work with local and state 
agencies, affected permittees, and other 
interested parties in designing and imple- 
menting management controls on visitor 
use within the 3-mile long riparian area 
on the Santa Clara River below the 
Gunlock Dam to allow for natural revege- 
tation and reduce threats to effective sani- 
tation and public safety. Restrictions 
could include closing one or more vehi- 
cle access points along the river, imple- 
menting seasonal or partial closures to 
camping, establishing day-use only areas, 
or allowing selected activities on a rota- 
tional basis. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Setting 

Primitive (10,910 acres), semiprimitive motor- 
ized (11,200 acres), roaded natural (1,615 acres) 

3. Deep Creek SRMA: 

1 1 ,350 acres of public land 

Main Attractions 

Scenic vistas and landforms, Deep Creek, 
Crystal Creek, North Fork of Virgin River, Box 
Canyon, Volcano Knoll, Indian Trail, Kolob 
Creek, Giant Oak Tree. 



Main Recreation Activities 

Stream-based recreation, hunting, fishing, hik- 
ing, wildlife viewing, undeveloped camping, 
touring, sightseeing, primitive recreation, and 
cross-country skiing. 

Management Prescriptions 

BLM proposes to implement the following pre- 
scriptions relating to recreation management 
within the area. Where further analysis, plan- 
ning, or resources are required, actual develop- 
ment or implementation would not take place 
until such analysis is completed and resources 
become available. 

• BLM would seek to obtain public access 
to selected portions of the SRMA and 
would mark public land boundaries to 
reduce unintentional use of intermingled 
private lands. 

• BLM would collaborate with Zion 
National Park managers to develop coor- 
dinated strategies for management of visi- 
tor activities. Emphasis would be placed 
on maintaining natural values and ensur- 
ing consistency with the objectives of the 
Park's General Management Plan and 
other policy documents. 

• Public lands within 0.25 miles of Deep 
Creek, Crystal Creek, Oak Creek, Kolob 
Creek, and the North Fork of the Virgin 
River north of Zion National Park would 
be managed to preserve those outstand- 
ingly remarkable values associated with 
BLM's recommendations for wild and 
scenic river designations. Management 
prescriptions for such areas are described 
in the discussion of wild and scenic rivers 
in the section of this Proposed Plan on 
Special Emphasis Areas. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Setting 

Primitive (5,760 acres), semiprimitive 
motorized (5,590) 

4. LaVerkin Creek/Black Ridge SRMA: 

20,1 80 acres of public land 

Main Attractions 

Scenic vistas and landforms. Red Butte, 
LaVerkin Creek Falls, LaVerkin Creek Trail, 
LaVerkin Creek Canyon, Black Ridge Overlook. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.44 



CHAPTER 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGE M E N T 



Main Recreation Activities 

Stream-based recreation, hiking, sightseeing, 
picnicking, horseback riding, touring, geologic 
interpretation, and primitive recreation. 

Management Prescriptions 

BLM proposes to implement the following pre- 
scriptions related to recreation management. 
Where further analysis, planning, or resources 
are required, actual development or implemen- 
tation would not take place until such analysis 
is completed and resources become available. 

• BLM would work with interested volun- 
teers and organizations to construct a 0.5 
mile trail and overlook at the Black Ridge 
viewing area. Construction would disturb 
less than 1 acre and be completed so as 
to avoid conflict with the present commu- 
nication site. 

• With collaboration from local and state 
agencies and law enforcement officials, 
BLM could develop a primitive day-use 
recreation site on 20 acres near LaVerkin 
(Twin) Falls and institute controls to 
reduce or eliminate trashing, undesirable 
uses, and public safety problems currently 
being experienced at this area. 

• In the primitive portion of the SRMA, 
commercial use would be limited to 
groups of 12 persons or less per trip with 
no more than three commercial permit- 
tees using the area at one time to reduce 
user impacts on the natural values of the 
area. Pack animals would be limited to 

1 5 head per trip. Weed-free hay for pack 
animals would be required of the permit- 
tee to prevent the further spread of inva- 
sive weeds. Additional limits on the 
amount of use would be developed, as 
needed, to maintain important resource 
values within sensitive parts of the SRMA. 

• Public lands within 0.25 miles of portions 
of LaVerkin Creek and Smith Creek would 
be managed to preserve those outstand- 
ingly remarkable values associated with 
BLM's recommendations for wild and 
scenic river designations. Management 
prescriptions for such areas are described 
in the discussion of wild and scenic rivers 



in the section of this Proposed Plan on 
Special Emphasis Areas. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Setting 

Primitive (11,605 acres), semiprimitivc motor- 
ized (8,575 acres) 

5. Canaan Mountain SRMA: 

31,395 acres of public land 

Main Attractions 

Canaan Mountain, Eagle Crags, hiking trails, 
outstanding scenery and landforms, unconfined 
primitive recreation. Water Canyon Arch, his- 
toric windlass and sawmill. 

Main Recreation Activities 

Hiking, backpacking, primitive recreation, 
horseback riding, sightseeing, outdoor photogra- 
phy, guided tours, and pack animal use. 

Management Prescriptions 

BLM proposes to implement the following pre- 
scriptions related to recreation management. 
Where further analysis, planning, or resources 
are required, actual development or implemen- 
tation would not take place until such analysis 
is completed and resources become available. 

» BLM would maintain the Eagle Crags, 
Short Creek, and Water Canyon trailhead 
parking areas. With help from volunteers 
and interested community groups and 
organizations, BLM would maintain the 
Eagle Crags, Water Canyon, Canaan 
Mountain, Squirrel Canyon, and Broad 
Hollow trails. The Eagle Crags and Water 
Canyon trails would be extended to the 
top of Canaan Mountain. 

« Commercial use would be limited to 
groups of 12 persons or less per trip with 
no more than three commercial permit- 
tees using the area at one time to reduce 
user impacts on the natural values of the 
area. Pack animals would be limited to 
1 5 head per trip. Weed-free feed for pack 
animals would be required of the permit- 
tee for overnight trips to prevent the fur- 
ther spread of invasive weeds. Additional 
limits on the amount of use would be 
developed, as needed, to maintain impor- 
tant resource values throughout the 
SRMA. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.45 



CHAPTER 2 « PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



• The unit boundaries would be marked in 
the vicinity of Hildale to reduce uninten- 
tional use on adjacent private lands. BLM 
would install the minimum necessary 
directional and interpretive signs to pro- 
vide essential visitor information. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Setting 

Primitive (31,395 acres) 

Off-Highway Vehicle 
Management 

Public lands in Washington County provide out- 
standing opportunities for motorized recreation 
on several hundreds of miles of backcountry 
roads and trails. In addition to motorized recre- 
ation, the public lands are used for motorized 
access for a wide variety of purposes including 
research, resource management, mineral explo- 
ration and development, grazing management, 
utility construction and maintenance, and other 
authorized uses. OHV enthusiasts are increas- 
ingly drawn from many areas outside of the 
county because of extensive open space, year- 
round accessibility, and the spectacular scenery 
that characterizes much of the area. Local users 
are also increasing sharply in numbers and 
diversity of interests (USDl/BLM, 1988). User 
group surveys show a trend to visit less crowded 
areas to find solitude and enjoy natural settings. 
The same surveys note strong user demands for 
more open lands close to areas where they live, 
more trailhead parking, and more developed 
trails (Utah SCORP, 1992). 

The public lands also support a modest level of 
yearly competitive and organized events that, 
up until recently, have involved relatively small 
numbers of participants. Based on trends occur- 
ring throughout the region, it is expected that 
demand for such events will also increase. BLM 
is seriously challenged as to how to meet these 
growing demands in light of the many acres of 
public lands within the county that support frag- 
ile or sensitive resources and at the same time 
meet the needs of numerous other user groups 
including established permittees and other 
recreationists competing for use of the same 
lands. Owners of adjacent or intermingled pri- 



vate lands have also expressed concern about 
off-road travel extending from public lands onto 
their properties. Resolving these issues will 
require careful coordination and attention to 
how OHVs would be managed on public lands 
in this resource area. 

Within Utah, statewide OHV issues are 
addressed in a comprehensive fashion by the 
State Division of Parks and Recreation through 
the OHV Advisory Council. The Council has 
effectively addressed numerous OHV issues 
throughout the state including safety, education, 
program funding, community partnerships, and 
reducing conflicts with resources and other pub- 
lic land users. BLM proposes to use the studies, 
analysis, and recommendations of this Council 
in dealing with OHV issues in Washington 
County. Moreover, collaboration with user 
groups, clubs, and community organizations to 
accomplish user education, program evaluation, 
and facility planning, development, and mainte- 
nance would be essential in meeting objectives 
for the program and resource protection. 

BLM's objectives for OHV management in this 
resource area would include; 

• Provide meaningful opportunities for a 
diversity of motorized recreation experi- 
ences on public lands in Washington 
County while protecting sensitive 
resources from excessive disturbance, 
road proliferation, and human encroach- 
ment. 

• Establish working partnerships with local 
and state agencies, user groups, commer- 
cial providers, and other interested parties 
that would facilitate effective OHV pro- 
gram development including the planning 
for and implementation of successful trail 
systems and use areas. 

• Provide education on OHV safety, eti- 
quette, and environmental awareness, in 
cooperation with local and state agencies, 
user groups, schools, and other organiza- 
tions. 

• Provide for adequate mapping, signage, 
and public information to facilitate user 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.46 



CHAPTER 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEME N T 



awareness, safety, and compliance with 
land use prescriptions. Collaborate with 
applicable state agencies and organiza- 
tions who share responsibility for the 
preparation of such materials to ensure 
timely and accurate presentation. 

• Achieve consistency, to the extent practi- 
cal, with adjacent land management 
agencies in making use designations, link- 
ing trails, and communicating with the 
public to provide a seamless transition for 
OHV users across agency jurisdictions. 

With final approval of this Plan, all public lands 
in the resource area would be designated as 
Open, Limited (e.g., open to use on existing or 
designated roads/trails), or Closed to OHV use 
based on applicable provisions contained in 
Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations, in 
reaching decisions on how and where to apply 
these designations, BLM would give deference 
to the following factors: 

- the need for recreationists, public land 
users, permittees, adjacent landowners, 
contractors, researchers, and state, local, 
and federal officials in the conduct of 
their business to access the public lands 
or adjacent properties for lawful purposes; 

- decisions and recommendations of man- 
agement plans for special use areas 
including, but not limited to, the 
Washington County HCP Reserve, areas 
of critical environmental concern, special 
recreation management areas, habitat 
management plans, river segments recom- 
mended for inclusion in the National 
Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and 
municipal and county land use plans and 
ordinances; 

- the need to reduce or eliminate conflicts 
with sensitive components of the environ- 
ment such as important riparian 
resources, wildlife habitats, listed and 
sensitive plant and animal species, histori- 
cal and archeological sites, primitive 
recreation areas, highly erodible soils. 



water quality, wilderness values, commu- 
nity watersheds, and scenic vistas; 

- the requirements of applicable state and 
federal laws and regulations pertaining to 
designated wilderness areas and other 
lands under special management or pro- 
tection; 

- consistency with designations on lands of 
similar character managed by the Dixie 
National Forest, BLM's Arizona Strip Field 
Office, and other adjacent federal agen- 
cies; and 

- the need to protect developed facilities 
including campgrounds, recreation areas, 
and interpretive sites as well as the rights 
of state, private, and municipal owners of 
adjacent and intermingled lands. 

Specific recommendations to minimize conflicts 
from OFiV use on various resources are 
described in each corresponding section of this 
proposed plan. In large part, public lands in the 
resource area would remain open to OHV use 
on existing roads and trails. Several special 
management areas and watersheds would 
remain open on designated roads and trails 
only. Specified public lands west of Veyo, at 
Sand Mountain, and adjacent to state lands west 
of Bloomington would remain open without 
limitation. Existing closures on public lands at 
Ripple Arch, portions of Canaan Mountain, and 
within the Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness 
Area would remain in place to protect special 
values. New closures would be implemented to 
protect special resources at the Dinosaur 
Trackway, the Fort Pearce Historic Site, the 
Watchman slope adjacent to Zion National Park 
in Springdale, the roadless watershed immedi- 
ately north of the upper Beaver Dam Wash, the 
cliff face of Red Mountain, river segments tenta- 
tively classified as wild and proposed as suitable 
for congressional designation under the Wild 
and Scenic Rivers Act, and areas classified as 
primitive in the Cottonwood Canyon portion of 
the Washington County HCP Reserve and the 
Deep Creek, Red Mountain, Canaan Mountain, 
and LaVerkin/Black Ridge Special Recreation 
Management Areas (SRMAs). Proposed OHV 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.47 



CHAPTER 2 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



use designations are summarized in Table 2-10 
and depicted on Map 2.13. 

Off-highway vehicle use would be managed in 
accordance with the following guidelines and 
definitions: 

• BLM would prepare an activity plan for 
areas open to designated roads and trails 
only that would identify roads and trails 
open to use. Road closures, if any, would 
be coordinated through applicable county 
or municipal officials with public notice 
in accordance with federal regulations 



and Utah state law, where such is 
required. Maps of such areas would be 
disseminated for public use and informa- 
tion. Except as otherwise allowed under 
the definitions below, off-highway travel 
in such areas must be approved by BLM's 
authorized officer in advance, including 
for holders of valid permits and licenses. 
Hunters may not use motorized vehicles 
off the designated roads to retrieve taken 
animals. Vehicle parking for authorized 
purposes must occur within 25 feet of the 
designated roads or trails. 



Table 2-10 • Off-Highway Vehicle Use Designations 



TOTAL ACRES 



Open to Off-Highway Vehicle Use 

Sand Mountain Area 

West of Veyo 

We.st of state land near Bloomington 



89,235 



Open for Use on Existing Roads and Trails 

All areas not specifically noted 



335,780 



Open for Use on Designated Roads and Trails 

Upper Beaver Dam Wash ACEC (in part) 

Beaver Dam Slope ACEC 

Red Bluff ACEC 

Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce ACEC 

Lower Virgin River ACEC 

Santa Clara River-Cunlock ACEC 

Santa Clara River-Land Hill ACEC 

Washington County HCP Reserve (in part) 

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Habitat 

Candidate Species Plant Habitat 

Portions of the riparian areas along the Virgin River 

near Virgin and Grafton 
Rockville Bench 
Red Cliffs and Baker Dam Recreation Areas 



112.286 



Closed to OHV Use 

ROS Primitive Areas (except the Volcano Knoll crossing, as permitted) 
River segments with a tentative classification of Wild, 

proposed as suitable for Congressional NWSRS designation 
Ripple Arch 
Dinosaur Trackway 
Watchman Area 
Fort Pearce Historical Site 
Red Mountain ACEC 
Canaan Mountain ACEC 
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness Area 



91,704 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.48 



CHART E R 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAG E M E N T 



• BLM would not prepare an activity plan 
for areas open to existing roads and trails 
but would distribute maps for the using 
public. All authorized land users that 
hold a valid permit or license including, 
but not limited to, grazing permits, hunt- 
ing licenses, wood permits, rights-of-way, 
mining claims, mineral leases, research 
agreements, etc., would be allowed to 
drive off-road only to the extent needed to 
fulfill the purposes of their permit or 
license. Motorized vehicles must park 
within 100 yards of an existing road or 
trail when required for camping in unde- 
veloped areas. 

• Off-road travel on public lands must be 
limited to the minimum necessary to 
accomplish lawful, intended purposes, to 
reduce unauthorized road proliferation 
and widespread cumulative impacts, and 
to prevent undue or unnecessary degrada- 
tion to the area. Negligent or willful 
destruction or degradation of natural 
resources or facilities would trigger 
appropriate law enforcement action 

and penalties. 

• Off-road travel restrictions currently in 
place as a result of Federal Register publi- 
cation, Vol. 45, No. 188, page 63557, 
Sep. 25, 1980, would remain in effect 
until approved designations are fully 
implemented. 

• Until activity plans and maps are pre- 
pared and made available to the public, 
lands classified as "Limited to Designated 
Roads and Trails" would be managed as 
"Limited to Existing Roads and Trails" so 
as to lessen confusion among the using 
public. Exceptions would occur only 
where further restrictions were applied by 
the publication referenced above. 

• BLM would apply the following defini- 
tions to OHV management in the 
resource area: 



cue, or law enforcement vehicle while 
being used for emergency purposes; (b) 
any vehicle whose use is expressly 
approved by the authorized officer; (c) 
vehicles in official use; and (d) any com- 
bat or combat support vehicle when used 
in times of national defense emergencies. 

2) "Official use" - use by any employee, 
agent, contractor, or designated govern- 
ment representative in the course of carry- 
ing out required duties. 

3) "Trail" - a two-track vehicle way such 
as a "jeep trail," a single track maintained 
specifically to allow passage by ATVs or 
motorcycles, and unvegetated dry wash 
bottoms. 

4) "Open area" - an area of public land 
where motorized travel is permitted both 
on and off roads subject to applicable 
operating regulations and vehicle 
standards. 

5) "Closed area" - an area of public land 
where motorized travel is prohibited, 
except as expressly provided by law, regu- 
lation, or the authorized officer for essen- 
tial purposes. 

6) "Limited to existing roads and trails" - 
an area of public land open to motorized 
travel on all roads and trails unless such 
roads and trails are reclaimed or other- 
wise signed as closed. Some off-road 
travel would be permitted in accordance 
with the guidelines described above. 

7) "Limited to designated roads and trails" 
- an area of public land open to motor- 
ized travel only on roads or trails that 
have been identified as open on an offi- 
cial, approved map. Off-road travel is 
prohibited unless prior approval has been 
granted by the authorized officer in accor- 
dance with the guidelines described 
above. 



1) "Off-highway vehicle" - any motorized 
vehicle capable of or designed for travel 
over land or other natural terrain, exclud- 
ing: (a) any military, fire, search and res- 



Si "Limited to seasonal use" - an area of 
public land where prescriptions for motor- 
ized travel are regulated by the time of 
year. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.49 



CHAPTER 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



9) "Off-road" - a term used to define 
motorized travel that does not take place 
on existing roads or trails; such travel is 
often referred to as "cross-country" travel. 

Through additional analysis and land use plan- 
ning, BLM would collaborate with affected and 
interested partners in evaluating existing roads 
and trails for suitability for active OHV manage- 
ment and envisioning potential new trails that 
would help meet current and future demands. 
In conducting such evaluations, the following 
factors would be considered: 

- trails suitable for different categories of 
OHVs including dirt bikes, ATVs, dune 
buggies, and 4-wheel drive touring vehi- 
cles, as well as opportunities for joint trail 
use; 

- needs for parking, trailheads, information- 
al and directional signs, mapping and 
profiling, and development of brochures 
or other materials for public dissemina- 
tion; 

- opportunities to tie into existing or 
planned trail networks on the Dixie 
National Forest and other areas to the 
north including the Paiute ATV Trail; simi- 
lar opportunities to tie into existing and 
planned networks on the Arizona Strip 
and other adjacent BLM units; 

- opportunities to obtain grants or other 
funding needed for planned developments 
through the Utah Division of Parks and 
Recreation and other sources; 

- measures needed to avoid onsite and off- 
site impacts to current land uses and 
important natural resources; among oth- 
ers, issues include noise and air pollution, 
erodible soils, stream sedimentation, non- 
point source water pollution, listed and 
sensitive species habitats, historic and 
archeological sites, wildlife, special man- 
agement areas, grazing operations, fence 
and gate security, needs of nonmotorized 
recreationists, and protection of property 
rights for adjacent landowners; 

- needs for collaborative management 
agreements between interested communi- 



ties, agencies, and BLM to authorize joint- 
ly developed projects on public lands; 
and 

- recognition that all needs and expecta- 
tions of the OHV community may not be 
satisfied due to limited resources and 
competing demands from other user 
groups on public lands in Washington 
County. 

Public land roads or trails determined to cause 
substantial environmental harm or to constitute 
a nuisance or threat to public safety would be 
considered for relocation or closure and rehabil- 
itation after appropriate coordination with 
Washington County or applicable municipal 
officials and the application of state and federal 
laws and regulations. 

BLM would work with user groups, organiza- 
tions, school officials, and local, state, and other 
federal agencies in promoting education and 
public information programs, including the 
Tread Lightly initiative, to increase user and 
potential user awareness of environmental 
issues, OHV safety, and trail etiquette. 

Maps and, where needed, trail profiles would be 
prepared for public dissemination to advise 
users of where OHV activity is authorized, what 
land use prescriptions apply, and what levels of 
user expertise are recommended. 

BLM would collaborate with state and local 
agencies and affected user groups in planning 
staging and parking areas adjacent to the pro- 
posed Sand Hollow Reservoir to service OHV 
users and other recreationists desiring access to 
the Sand Mountain area. Other than minimal 
signing needed for safety and essential direc- 
tions, the area would be left open and 
unmarked to provide a semiprimitive and 
unstructured riding experience. 

BLM would continue to work with OHV spon- 
sors and organizations to authorize competitive 
events, commercial touring, and organized rides 
on a case-by-case basis subject to site-specific 
analysis. Limited administrative capabilities in 
BLM and the need to provide for critical 
resource protection and site rehabilitation 
would restrict the number of large competitive 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.50 



CHAPTER 2 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



events (up to 300 participants) authorized on 
public lands. Collaboration with adjacent BLM 
units on the Arizona Strip would be encouraged 
to allow joint management or sponsorship of 
such events, increase options for alternative 
route selection, and provide for yearly rotation 
of established routes for large events to promote 
rehabilitation and reduce long-term cumulative 
impacts. Limitations on the number of partici- 
pants and spectators to all competitive events 
would be applied where warranted based on 
design of the competition and site capabilities. 

Visual Resource 
Management 

Washington County boasts of some of the most 
exceptional scenic assets in the western United 
States (Weir, Utah Handbook, 1992). It sits at 
the juncture of three physiographic provinces 
including the spectacular Colorado Plateau, the 
expansive Basin and Range, and the rich and 
diverse Mojave Desert. The transitions between 
the provinces provide a wealth of varying land- 
forms, geology, colors, elevation changes, and 
vegetation types. Distinctive elements of the 
scenic landscape in the county include Zion 
National Park, the Vermillion Cliffs, the Pine 
Valley Mountains, Snow Canyon State Park, Red 
Mountain, the Virgin River Gorge, the Hurricane 
Cliffs, and the Joshua Tree Forest on the Beaver 
Dam Slope. In addition to its natural land- 
scapes, the county also possesses urban, his- 
toric, agricultural, and rural-pastoral landscapes 
of importance. These scenic attractions con- 
tribute to the excellent quality of life enjoyed by 
residents in the local area and is a major draw 
to the millions of visitors who come to the 
county each year to enjoy touring and sightsee- 
ing activities. For this reason, the outstanding 
scenery is of major importance to the economy 
of the region. The open and diverse vistas and 
natural landscapes that characterize a great per- 
centage of the public lands in the county con- 
tribute significantly to this setting. 

BLM's objective would be to manage the public 
lands in such a way as to preserve those scenic 
vistas which are deemed to be most important 
(a) in their impact on the quality of life for resi- 
dents and communities in the area, (b) in their 
contribution to the quality of recreational visitor 



experiences, and (c) in supporting the regional 
tourism industry and segments of the local 
economy dependent on public land resources. 
Moreover, BLM would seek to complement the 
rural, agricultural, historic, and urban land- 
scapes on adjoining private, state, and tribal 
lands by maintaining the integrity of background 
vistas on the public lands. 

In order to accomplish these objectives, BLM 
would apply Visual Resource Management 
(VRM) Class Objectives described in Appendix 6 
to public lands in the county. The class objec- 
tives would guide decisionmakers in evaluating 
potential impacts from land use proposals on 
the public lands and in designing alternatives or 
measures that would eliminate or reduce unde- 
sirable impacts on the quality of the visual 
resource. VRM classes for public lands in the 
resource area are summarized in Table 2-1 1 and 
depicted on Map 2.14. 



Table 2-11 • Visuc 
Classes 


1 Reso 


jrce 


Management 


VRM Class 1 






40,877 Acres 


VRM Class 11 






1 1 1 ,407 Acres 


VRM Class III 






417,925 Acres 


VRM Class IV 






58,546 Acres 



The proposed classifications reflect the results of 
scenic quality inventories upgraded in those 
locations where BLM deemed it necessary to 
retain desirable landscape character and 
achieve the broad management objectives iden- 
tified above. BLM managers could use discre- 
tion in applying the standards to various land 
use proposals and grant exceptions where war- 
ranted by the public interest or valid develop- 
ment rights, such as those conveyed under the 
mining and mineral leasing laws. Within 
excepted areas, BLM would apply appropriate 
mitigating measures to authorized actions to 
achieve the lowest feasible level of impact. 

As Washington County continues to respond to 
forces of change, the classifications would be 
reviewed from time to time and modified as 
needed in response to factors such as new legis- 
lation, revisions to local land use plans, unex- 
pected shifts in urbanization, visual objectives 
in local land use agreements, or determinations 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.51 



CHAPTER 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



that broad planning objectives were not being 
met. Such changes would be made through the 
planning process. 

To protect scenic vistas essential to the integrity 
of the Zion corridor along State Scenic Highway 
9, public lands within view of the highway from 
the top of the bench at LaVerkin to the south 
entrance of the Park would be classified VRM 
Class II. Exceptions to the standards would be 
granted to allow essential rights-of-way and 
public purpose authorizations needed to support 
the health, safety, and well-being of local com- 
munities in the corridor where the impacts of 
such uses can be mitigated to satisfactory levels. 
Exceptions could also be granted as necessary 
to fulfill the purposes of approved land use and 
management plans for Zion National Park, com- 
munity-based partnership efforts, and other 
objectives of this Proposed Plan. 

VRM Class IV objectives would be applied to 
established mineral materials sites. 

Except in designated utility corridors, VRM 
Class I and II areas would be right-of-way avoid- 
ance areas to reduce the potential for scenic 
degradation. 

VRM Class II designations would not prevent 
prescribed burns needed to accomplish other 
important objectives described in this Proposed 
Plan. 

BLM would apply VRM Class 111 objectives to 
vegetation treatment areas, communication 
sites, and utility corridors regardless of the VRM 
class assigned to the affected lands. 

Wilderness Manag^fflaiit 

Part of one congressionally designated wilder- 
ness area is located on public lands in 
Washington County. The Arizona Wilderness 
Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-406) established the 
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness Area, 2,690 
acres that lie on the Utah side of the state line. 
The remaining 15,812 acres in Arizona are 
managed by BLM's Arizona Strip Field Office. 
The Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness Area is 
managed in accordance with the Paiule and 
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness 
Management Plan (USDI/BLM, 1990). 



As a result of wilderness inventories required by 
and conducted under the authority of Section 
603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act (FLPMA), 1 1 wilderness study areas (WSAs) 
and one instant .study area were identified with- 
in the resource area. Each of these areas was 
studied and analyzed for wilderness suitability 
in the 1990 Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness 
Final Environmental Impact Statement. BLM's 
recommendations were forwarded to the 
Secretary of the Interior and on to the President 
and the Congress in 1991. Until such time as 
the Congress acts to designate all or part of 
these areas as wilderness or releases them from 
further wilderness consideration, BLM is 
required by FLPMA to manage the areas so as 
not to impair their suitability for preservation as 
wilderness, subject to valid existing rights and 
provisions affecting grandfathered mining, graz- 
ing, and mineral leasing operations. BLM policy 
for how such lands are to be managed is 
described in its Interim Management Policy and 
Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review, 
BLM Handbook H-8550-1. Public lands within 
WSAs are also closed to fluid mineral leasing by 
the 1987 Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing 
Reform Act. However, this Proposed Plan 
addresses how lands in wilderness study areas 
would be managed if released from such review. 
By so doing, BLM will have land use prescrip- 
tions in place for any lands released without the 
need for costly and extensive plan amendments. 
Any lands subsequently designated as wilder- 
ness by Congress would be managed in accor- 
dance with provisions of the Wilderness Act of 
1 964 and the terms of the implementing 
legislation. 

The Beaver Dam Wilderness Area, the Joshua 
Tree Instant Study Area, and the 1 1 WSAs in the 
resource area are described in Table 2-12 and 
shown on Map 2.15. 

Cultural and Paleontological 
Resources 

Public lands in Washington County sustain 
widespread, abundant, and varied prehistoric 
archeological resources in addition to numerous 
historic trails and sites. Collectively known as 
"cultural resources," these sites are important to 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.52 



C H A PTE R 



PROPOSE D R E S O U R C E M A N A CEMENT 





Table 2-12 • Wilderness 


Study 


Areas and Des 


gnated Wilderness in Wash 


ngton County, Utah 


WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 


WSA ACREAGE 


BLM PROPOSED ACREAGE 


Cougar Canyon 






15,968 




6,408 


Red Mounlain 






18,290 




12,842 


Cottonwood Canyon 






11,330 




9,853 


La Verkin Creek Canyon 






567 




567 


Deep Creek 






3,320 




3,320 


Canaan Mountain 






42,858 




32,440 ' 


Red Butte 






804 




804 


The Watchman 






600 




600 


Taylor Creek 






35 




35 


Goose Creek 






89 




89 


Bear Trap 






40 




40 


Subtotal 






93,901 




66,998 


Joshua Tree Instanl Study 


Area 




1,015 




1,015 


Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness Area 
(Utah Portion) 


2,690 




2,690 


Grand Total 






97,606 




70,703 



' Canaan Mountain WSA acreage total 47,170 acres (42,858 acres in Washington County, 4,312 acres in Kane County) 

- Canaan Mountain BLM Proposed WSA total 33,800 acres (Approx. 32,440 acres in Washington County, 1,360 acres in Kane 

County) 



members of the scientific community as well as 
academic institutions, private organizations, 
Indian tribes, and interested individuals through- 
out the region. The sites contain a wealth of 
information about historic and prehistoric cul- 
tures and events, provide enjoyment to visitors 
and cultural enthusiasts who wish to learn about 
and protect the sites, and have intrinsic value to 
Indian tribes who have religious, cultural, and 
historic ties to the resources themselves. It is 
estimated that over 10,000 Anasazi and prehis- 
toric Paiute sites may occur on public lands in 
Washington County alone (USDl/BLM, 1988). 
Several paleontological sites are also known to 



exist on the public lands. Based on communi- 
cations with local universities, geologic strata in 
the resource area are suspected to contain other 
paleontological resources. 

Although such resources are protected by a vari- 
ety of state and federal laws, the condition of 
these public assets throughout the resource area 
is only fair due to extensive looting and vandal- 
ism. A 1987 report by the Government 
Accounting Office indicated that two thirds of 
all Anasazi structural sites have been disturbed 
throughout the region (US/GAO, 1987). Local 
observers report that all known large sites on 



DIXIE RESOURCr AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.53 



CHAPTER 2 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MAN A G E M E N T 



public lands in this area have been vandalized 
and most have been severely damaged. 
Numerous rock art sites in the resource area 
remain in good condition, but increasing reports 
are being received on growing vandalism and 
attempts at removal. Measures need to be taken 
to prevent additional losses. 

In managing cultural and paleontoiogical 
resources on public lands, BLM would seek to 
(a) employ reasonable measures and land use 
controls needed to reduce impacts from urban- 
ization and human encroachment, (b) apply the 
principles of conservation management to 
selected areas to maintain such resources in 
their present condition for future study and 
enjoyment, (c) reduce looting and vandalism 
through increased public education, surveil- 
lance, and enforcement, (d) provide for legiti- 
mate field research by credible scientists and 
institutions, (e) ensure compliance with applica- 
ble state and federal laws for consultation, 
assessment, and mitigation including consulta- 
tion with interested or affected Indian tribes, 
and (f) provide for stabilization, maintenance, 
and interpretation of selected sites for public 
enjoyment and education. 

BLM would collaborate with local communities, 
organizations, local and state agencies, Indian 
tribes, and other interested parties in developing 
and implementing plans for the restoration, sta- 
bilization, protection, and/or interpretation of 
appropriate historical, archeological, or paleon- 
toiogical sites and resources in the resource 
area. Specific recommendations for the 
Dinosaur Trackway, Honeymoon Trail, 
Dominguez-Escalante Trail, and Fort Pearce his- 
toric site are included in the section on 
Recreation under prescriptions for the Sand 
Mountain Special Recreation Management Area. 
Protection for the Red Cliffs Archeological 
Interpretive site is provided for in the prescrip- 
tions for the Red Cliffs Recreation site described 
in the same general section. 

Prescriptions for all or portions of four proposed 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern would 
be applied to protect, conserve, or interpret 
important cultural and paleontoiogical 
resources. The areas include Santa Clara 
River/Gunlock, Santa Clara River/Land Hill, 



Lower Virgin River, and Little Creek Mountain. 
The prescriptions are described in detail under 
the section on Special Emphasis Areas. Among 
other things, the prescriptions would limit off- 
road travel, require site avoidance for fluid min- 
eral leasing, and close the affected areas to fuel- 
wood and mineral materials sales. Concession- 
aire management of cultural or paleontoiogical 
resources would be considered inconsistent 
with the objectives of this Plan and would not 
be authorized. 

BLM would continue to maintain inventories of 
known sites and evaluate their potential for pro- 
tection, conservation, research, or mitigation 
and data recovery when threatened by land use 
proposals. Under applicable law and regula- 
tion, BLM would authorize field research by 
qualified colleges, universities, and professionals 
for legitimate purposes. When archeological 
resources are involved, BLM would ensure com- 
pliance with all requirements for Native 
American consultation and other provisions of 
law and executive orders including the Native 
American Graves Repatriation and Protection 
Act. 

BLM would establish a site steward program 
using trained volunteers to monitor conditions at 
approved historic, archeological, and paleonto- 
iogical sites. The site stewards would report vio- 
lations to appropriate law enforcement officials 
and, where appropriate, provide on-site infor- 
mation about site values and needed protection 
to visitors and interested members of the public. 
Additional surveillance would be provided by 
BLM rangers and through cooperative programs 
with local law enforcement offices, the Civil Air 
Patrol, or other qualified partners. 

BLM would consider implementation of conser- 
vation management on public lands in the Little 
Creek Mountain Anasazi area, the Cedar 
Pockets/Bulldog Pass Archaic area, and high 
density riverine sites to maintain their present 
condition and reduce potential conflicts. 
Conservation management entails leaving 
cultural resources in place without excavation, 
recovery, or disturbance so that they may be 
studied on site by future generations of 
scientists. 



PIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.54 



CHAPTER 2 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



Hazardous Waste 
Management 

The management of hazardous material and 
waste is controlled by a variety of state and fed- 
eral laws and regulations which apply to public 
lands, among others. Public lands in the 
resource area are crossed by six transportation 
routes on which hazardous material or waste is 
transported. These routes include Interstate 
Highway 15, State Routes 9, 17, 18, and 59, 
and Old U.S. Highway 91 . One site listed 
under the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act on a 
former mining and milling operation in the 
Leeds/Silver Reef area has been cleaned up in 
cooperation with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). Surface contamination from 
unexploded military ordnance at the foot of 
Hurricane Mesa has been cleaned up in cooper- 
ation with the National Guard, but subsurface 
contamination on the site has yet to be fully 
assessed. To eliminate potential long-term pub- 
lic liability, BLM policy does not authorize pub- 
lic lands to be used for hazardous waste dispos- 
al unless such lands are first transferred out of 
public ownership. No hazardous waste disposal 
site needs have been identified on public lands 
in Washington County. 

BLM's objective would be to comply with all 
applicable state and federal laws and regula- 
tions pertaining to the use and storage of haz- 
ardous materials and to keep public lands free 
from unauthorized hazardous material genera- 
tion, storage, or transport. 

Emphasis would be placed on taking appropri- 
ate legal and enforcement action necessary to 
terminate illegal dumping and remove any haz- 
ardous wastes deposited on the public lands. 

BLM would ensure that all use authorizations it 
grants to public land users involving the genera- 
tion, storage, or transport of hazardous materials 
are subject to required coordination and/or per- 
mitting from applicable local and state agencies 
and otherwise conform to applicable state and 
federal laws and regulations. 

BLM would collaborate with EPA, the Utah 
Department of Environmental Quality, and other 



affected local, state, and federal agencies in 
assessing sites suspected of containing haz- 
ardous wastes or spills and developing strategies 
for remediation. BLM would continue to seek 
military assistance in assessing subsurface ord- 
nance contamination adjacent to Hurricane 
Mesa and collaborate in preparing and imple- 
menting a decontamination plan, if warranted. 
In accordance with BLM policy, sanitary land- 
fills would not be permitted under conventional 
leasing or Recreation and Public Purpose Act 
authorities where lingering public liability exists. 



Fire Managment 



Wildland fires are part of the natural forces 
affecting public lands in Washington County. 
Between 1985 and 1996, 160 reported fires 
burned about 31,200 acres on public lands in 
the resource area. Previous fire policies resulted 
in full or conditional (least cost) suppression in 
all instances. Land management agencies, how- 
ever, are learning that proper fire management 
is a key tool that can be used to help restore 
natural systems to their properly functioning 
conditions by restoring fire to its legitimate role 
in the ecosystem (USDI/USDA, 1996). Fire sup- 
pression in the resource area would be directed 
by objectives and prescriptions identified in the 
proposed Dixie Fire Management Plan sched- 
uled for completion in 1998. The highest priori- 
ties of fire suppression would be to protect life, 
firefighter safety, property, and critical resource 
values. The BLM would coordinate with stake- 
holders at local and regional levels as well as 
adjacent land management agencies in formu- 
lating and implementing the final Fire 
Management Plan. 

The Fire Management Plan would identify (a) 
where wildland fire would be suppressed imme- 
diately such as near private lands or to avoid 
threats to life and property, (b) where wildland 
fire would be suppressed to avoid unacceptable 
impacts to natural resources such as in key 
riparian areas or endangered species habitats, 
(c) where fire is desired to achieve resource 
objectives but there are constraints to managing 
the fire such as excessive fuel build-up due to 
lack of fire in the past, and (d) where fire is 
desired to achieve resource objectives or restore 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.55 



A P T E R 2 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MA NAGEMENT 



the land to a desired condition and there are no 
constraints to such management. 

The Fire Management Plan would use major 
vegetative communities to define where the sup- 
pression strategies described above would be 
employed on public lands throughout the coun- 
ty. For each area so identified, the plan would 
describe (a) existing vegetative and resource 
conditions, (b) desired future conditions, (c) the 
role fire would play in achieving such condi- 
tions, and (d) areas where specific suppression 
tactics need careful evaluation due to cost, safe- 
ty, resource issues, or other concerns. The Fire 
Management Plan would also determine what 
fire management and suppression resources are 
needed to meet the goals and objectives identi- 
fied in the plan. 

Until the Dixie Fire Management Plan is 
approved, BLM would follow protocols estab- 
lished in the BLM Cedar City District's Fire 
Management Plan and other applicable plans. 

The Interagency Annual Operating Plan, which 
coordinates fire actions between BLM, 
Washington County, the State of Utah, the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (Southern Paiute Field 
Station), Dixie National Forest, and Zion 
National Park would continue to provide guid- 
ance for fire operations between the agencies. 
This plan would be updated yearly and would 
operate on the "closest available forces" con- 
cept. It would also establish protocols for notifi- 
cation and initial attack. 

The following prescriptions would be applied to 
fire suppression and prescribed fire activity on 
public lands: 

• Onsite BLM resource advisors would be 
assigned to extended attack fires where 
needed to integrate resource concerns 
into the development of tactical plans and 
to evaluate potential for post-fire rehabili- 
tation. Special attention would be given 
to riparian areas, federally listed plant and 
animal species habitat, and crucial mule 
deer winter range. Advisors would be 
assigned to all fires threatening desert tor- 
toise habitat, wilderness areas, or wilder- 
ness study areas. 

• Wildfires in designated wilderness areas 
would be managed in accordance with 
applicable wilderness management plans. 



» Wildfires in wilderness study areas would 
be managed in accordance with guide- 
lines in BLM's Interim Management Policy 
(BLM handbook H-8550-1). 

• Surface-disturbing suppression activities 
would avoid known cultural sites to the 
extent avoidance is feasible. 

• Although exempt from OHV use designa- 
tions by regulation, fire suppression activi- 
ties would be directed so as to give 
appropriate deference to resources and 
conditions intended to be protected by 
such designations. 

• BLM would manage fire suppression 
activities in desert tortoise habitat in 
accordance with applicable biological 
opinions of the FWS, provisions in the 
desert tortoise recovery plan, and guide- 
lines in Fighting Wildfire in Desert 
Tortoise FHabitat: Considerations for Land 
Managers, (T. Duck el al, 1 995 Desert 
Tortoise Council Symposium - 
International Symposium of Wildland 
Fire). 

• BLM would conduct rehabilitation of 
lands affected by wildfire in accordance 
with provisions of the approved Dixie 
Normal Fire Rehabilitation Plan (1997). 
Any rehabilitation would require site-spe- 
cific analysis including full cultural 
resource inventories on lands to be dis- 
turbed and appropriate consultation. In 
all cases, BLM would apply standards and 
guidelines approved for various resources 
included in Utah BLM's Standards for 
Rangeland Fiealth and Guidelines for 
Grazing Management contained in 
Appendix 3. Deference would be given 
to the use of least disruptive practices in 
areas being managed primarily for their 
natural values including primitive recre- 
ation areas, designated wilderness areas, 
riparian zones, areas of critical environ- 
mental concern, and rivers recommended 
as suitable for inclusion in the National 
Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

• In accordance with the proposed Dixie 
Fire Management Plan, BLM would con- 
duct prescribed burns and manage pre- 
scribed natural fires to achieve vegetation 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.56 



CHAPTER 



PROPOSED RES OURCE MANAGEMENT 



management objectives, improve wildlife 
habitat, reduce hazardous fuels, and 
achieve long-term objectives for soil stabi- 
lization and water quality. Prescribed fire 
would be conducted on 500 acres of 
wildlife habitat at Potters Peak. 
Prescribed fire would be considered for 
use on up to 1 vegetation treatment 
areas listed in the section of this Proposed 
Plan on Livestock Grazing when neces- 
sary to maintain desired vegetation com- 
munities in those areas. Fire rehabilita- 
tion areas could also be maintained 
through prescribed fire to achieve these 
same objectives. 

• In conducting prescribed burns, BLM 
would design and time the projects so as 
to maximize smoke dispersal and protect 
the high quality airshed within Zion 
National Park and other Class I areas in 
the region. For effective smoke manage- 
ment, ignition would be approved only 
when the burning index is .500 or greater. 

• Consultation with permittees, local and 
state agencies, adjacent land managers, 
and nearby private landowners would be 
required for all prescribed burns during 
the planning phase to ensure such burns 
minimize disruption to existing land uses 
and that affected publics are notified. 

• BLM would collaborate with local, state, 
and federal agencies in promoting public 
education and awareness on fire preven- 
tion, protection of rural properties, and 
the proper role of fire in natural systems. 

Special Emphasis Areas 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (October 2, 
1968, Public Law 90-542) requires BLM to con- 
sider wild and scenic river values in its land use 
planning process. To that end, BLM inventoried 
61 water courses or river segments on public 
lands throughout the resource area to determine 
which segments were free flowing and had 
river-related resource values of sufficient signifi- 
cance to warrant eligibility for further study 
under the Act. In conducting the inventory. 



BLM took into account the views of numerous 
citizens, organizations, and local, state, and fed- 
eral agencies. Using the process described in 
Appendix 6 of the Draft RMP, BLM has deter- 
mined that portions of nine rivers studied are 
eligible for congressional designation. These 
determinations are summarized in Appendix 7 
and depicted on Map 2.16. 

On April 1 7, 1997, the Assistant Secretary for 
Lands and Minerals Management transmitted to 
the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives a 
legislative package which, among other things, 
recommended that Congress authorize a study 
of a 234-mile segment of the Virgin River and its 
tributaries in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. If 
approved by Congress, the study would evaluate 
the river for possible designation as part of the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and 
would be led by an interdisciplinary team from 
the BLM, the National Park Service, the Forest 
Service, and other affected parties. Conducted 
under Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act, the study would evaluate the river in its 
entirety using common criteria developed joint- 
ly by the principal federal agencies involved. It 
would also avoid piecemealing the evaluation 
over numerous years as the respective agencies 
completed land use plans according to different 
planning schedules. By so doing. Department 
of the Interior officials believe that all issues 
associated with the river would be clearly and 
consistently addressed before making recom- 
mendations for designation or nondesignation 
under the Act (letter from Assistant Secretary 
Armstrong, June 1997). Actual designation 
would occur only if legislation were enacted 
through the Congress and signed into law by the 
President. 

On November 6, 1997, BLM's Utah State 
Director signed a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) concerning wild and 
scenic river studies in Utah. Cosigned by the 
Governor of Utah, the Regional Forester of the 
Forest Service, the Regional Director of the 
National Park Service, and affected local agen- 
cies, the MOU establishes a cooperative rela- 
tionship among the agencies for conducting 
wild and scenic river studies for Utah rivers. 
Under the MOU, the parties would strive to 
reach consensus regarding recommendations to 
Congress for inclusion of rivers in the National 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.57 



CHAPTER 2 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANA G E 



E N T 



Wild and Scenic Rivers Systenn. Besides apply- 
ing consistent criteria across agency jurisdic- 
tions, the joint review would avoid piecemeal- 
ing of river segments in logical watershed units 
in the state. Actual designation of river seg- 
ments would only occur through congressional 
action or as a result of Secretarial decision at 
the request of the Governor in accordance with 
provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
(the Act). Although the MOU was signed too 
late to be fully implemented for the Dixie 
Proposed RMP/Final EIS, BLM would seek to 
work with the agencies involved to coordinate 
its decisionmaking on wild and scenic river 
issues and to achieve consistency wherever 
possible. 

To facilitate such consistency and coordination, 
BLM has entered into a separate MOU with the 
National Park Service, dated February 1998, for 
the study of river segments on four isolated 
tracts of public land adjacent to the north 
boundary of Zion National Park. These include 
small portions of Willis Creek, Goose Creek, 
Beartrap Canyon, and Shunes Creek. In con- 
ducting its river inventories, BLM judged these 
segments not eligible for further study based on 
the absence of outstandingly remarkable values 
on the BLM-administered portions of the seg- 
ments. Because of the configuration of the 
parcels relative to the park, it is recognized that 
evaluation of the entire river segment across fed- 
eral lands may have led to a different conclu- 
sion as to eligibility for any of the tracts 
involved. Zion National Park is currently 
preparing a General Management Plan and is 
conducting its own review of river segments 
within the park for possible inclusion into the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. BLM's 
MOU with Zion National Park provides that the 
four segments previously evaluated by BLM 
would be included in the National Park Service 
river study. BLM and the National Park Service 
would strive to reach a joint conclusion as to 
eligibility, tentative classification, and suitability 
for the entire segments involved. Such deci- 
sions would either affirm or supersede BLM's 
original conclusions as to those portions on 
public lands. Two additional public land 
parcels at the east end of the middle fork of 
Taylor Creek and on the north rim of the Kolob 
Creek narrows could also be affected by the 
Park Service study should the creeks be recom- 



mended as suitable for designation. Until such 
time as the park's General Management Plan is 
completed, BLM's original conclusions as to eli- 
gibility would stand. 

At such time as the supervisor of the Dixie 
National Forest conducts wild and scenic river 
studies in a revision of the Dixie National Forest 
Land and Resource Management Plan, BLM 
would consider entering into a similar agree- 
ment with the Forest Service for streams crossing 
agency jurisdictions within Washington County. 
The agreement could call for evaluation of 
selected stream segments in their entirety where 
both agencies agree that such would provide a 
logical and consistent conclusion as to eligibili- 
ty and suitability. Unless and until an agree- 
ment is put into place and a joint planning deci- 
sion approved, BLM's conclusions regarding eli- 
gibility for public land river segments addressed 
in this Proposed Plan would stand. 

After careful review of numerous public com- 
ments received after publication of the Draft 
RMP/EIS and coordination with interested local, 
state, and federal agencies, BLM has concluded 
it would recommend as suitable for 
Congressional designation parts or all of 5 of the 
1 1 river segments found eligible on public 
lands. These include Deep Creek/Crystal Creek, 
North Fork of the Virgin River above Zion 
National Park, Oak Creek/Kolob Creek, that por- 
tion of LaVerkin Creek/Smith Creek from above 
Zion National Park to the north boundary of the 
private parcel in Section 18, T. 40 S., R. 12 W., 
and that portion of Segment B of the Virgin River 
contained wholly within the Beaver Dam 
Mountains Wilderness Area. Recommended 
segments are shown on Map 2.1 6. All of the 
above river segments would carry a tentative 
classification of wild and would cover approxi- 
mately 25.7 miles. Factors considered in reach- 
ing this conclusion are described in Appendix 8. 

Congressional designation of any or all of these 
segments would serve to meet the objective of 
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act which is to pre- 
serve in free-flowing condition selected rivers in 
the nation which possess outstandingly remark- 
able values and to protect those rivers and their 
immediate environments for the benefit of pre- 
sent and future generations. Moreover, such 
designation would bring national recognition to 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.58 



CHAPTER 2 » PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGE M E N T 



designated river segments in Washington County 
and elevate river management goals warranting 
long-term commitments from affected agencies. 
BLM's recommendations would also conform to 
proposed objectives and recommendations on 
the same river segments across federal agency 
boundaries, thereby promoting consistent land 
use regulation and shared management 
opportunities. 

Upon approval of the Record of Decision for 
this Proposed Plan, protective management 
would be implemented under the authority of 
Section 202 of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act (FLPMA) on those segments 
recommended as suitable to ensure that eligibil- 
ity and tentative classification would not be 
adversely affected. Protective management 
objectives for public lands recommended as 
suitable would include (see BLM Manual 
8351. 32C, 1992): 

- maintaining free-flowing character by 
excluding new impoundments, diversions, 
channelization, or rip-rapping on public 
land segments; 

- preserving or enhancing outstandingly 
remarkable values; and 

- allowing no developments on public 
lands within the river corridors that would 
alter the tentative classifications. 

For that segment of the Virgin River Gorge with- 
in the Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness Area, 
protective management would be provided by 
prescriptions already in place for the wilderness 
area. For all other segments tentatively classi- 
fied as wild, the following prescriptions would 
apply to lands within the affected corridors: 

• VRM Class II 

• Right-of-way avoidance area 

• Mining plan of operation required 

• Fluid mineral leasing Category 3 
(NSO - no waivers) 

• Closed to mineral materials sales 

• Closed to fuelwood sales 

• Closed to OHV and mountain bike use 



Limited exceptions to OHV travel restrictions 
could be made for authorized uses only in 
accordance with federal regulations at 43 CFR 
8340.0-5 (1997) and as described in the section 
of this Proposed Plan on Off-FHighway Vehicle 
Management. 

Protective management would remain in place 
until (a) Congress or the Secretary of the Interior 
designate the segments and apply new provi- 
sions, (b) Congress or the Secretary release the 
segments from protection or further considera- 
tion, or (c) new studies are completed under 
Sections 5(a), 5(d), or 2(a)(ii) of the Act that 
change or eliminate the need for protective 
management on the segments involved. If 
released from protective management, the lands 
would be managed under the same prescrip- 
tions applied to the surrounding public lands. 

As a result of its recommendations for suitability 
contained in this Proposed Plan, BLM would 
take or approve no action that would abrogate 
the intent or terms of the Zion National Park 
Water Rights Settlement Agreement of 
December 4, 1996. BLM would promote the 
inclusion of such provisions in any legislative or 
administrative action taken to designate affected 
river segments on public lands under the Wild 
and Scenic Rivers Act. In deference to the 
agreement, BLM would allow for the develop- 
ment contemplated in each water basin 
upstream or up gradient from Zion National 
Park subject to applicable federal laws and regu- 
lations while managing for the values which led 
to recommendations for suitability or subse- 
quent legislative or administrative action. BLM 
also concludes that the water rights quantifica- 
tion established for Zion National Park in the 
agreement is sufficient to satisfy flow require- 
ments needed to maintain those values on pub- 
lic lands above the park in Washington County. 
The conclusion is based on the fact that con- 
sumptive uses and resource requirements in the 
Park, including those for visitor enjoyment, 
clearly exceed those on the adjacent public 
lands to the north. 

If any or all of the recommended rivers are des- 
ignated, BLM would work closely with affected 
local, state, and federal agencies, and Indian 
tribes in preparing study reports and detailed 
management plans pertaining to the manage- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.59 



CHAPTER 2 « PROPOSED RESOURCE M ANAGEMENT 



ment of protected river segments. BLM's goal 
would be to achieve consistency with other land 
use plans and community-based efforts to pro- 
mote sound land use and resource protection 
within river corridors in and adjacent to 
Washington County. Should the State of Utah, 
in cooperation with local governments, pursue 
Secretarial designation of river segments in 
Washington County under Section 2(a)(ii) of the 
Act, BLM would give its full support to such 
designation where federal policies and planning 
objectives would be complemented. If neces- 
sary, this land use plan could be amended to 
accommodate such action and cooperative 
agreements entered into for the planning, 
administration, and management of public lands 
which are within the boundaries of river areas 
so designated. 

BLM's intent would be to defer submission of 
suitability reports to Congress until after studies 
are completed on adjacent Forest Service and 
Park Service lands so that joint recommenda- 
tions could be written and submitted that reflect 
an interagency, basinwide approach on the 
Virgin River System in Utah. Preparation and 
submission of the reports would follow provi- 
sions of the statewide interagency MOU of 
November 6, 1997, including coordination with 
state and local agencies. 

Should designation occur on any river segment 
as a result of Secretarial or Congressional 
action, existing rights, privileges, and contracts 
would be protected. Under Section 12 of the 
Act, termination of such rights, privileges, and 
contracts could happen only with the consent of 
the affected non-federal party. Section 13 of the 
Act provides authority for the creation of a fed- 
eral reserved water right at the time the designa- 
tion is made only in amounts necessary to 
accomplish the purposes of the Act. Such provi- 
sions would be established in the Secretary's 
Order or the legislation which puts the designa- 
tion into place. BLM's intent would be to leave 
existing water rights undisturbed and to recog- 
nize the lawful rights of private, municipal, and 
state entities to manage water resources under 
state law to meet the needs of the community. 
Federal law, including Section 13 of the Act and 
the McCarren Amendment (43 U.S.C. 666), rec- 



ognizes state jurisdiction over water allocation 
in designated streams. Thus, it would be BLM's 
position that existing water rights and existing 
developments on such streams would not be 
affected by designation or the creation of the 
federal reserved water right. BLM would seek 
to work with upstream water users and applica- 
ble agencies to ensure that water flows were 
maintained at a level sufficient to sustain the 
values for which affected river segments were 
designated. 

Should public land segments of rivers be desig- 
nated through Congressional or Secretarial 
action, BLM would be required to prepare 
detailed management plans within 3 years of 
the designation. By law, the plans would be 
designed to protect and enhance those values 
for which the rivers were designated without 
limiting other uses that do not substantially 
interfere with public use and enjoyment of those 
values. Local and state agencies would be 
encouraged to participate in the formulation of 
such plans, and where mutual interests would 
be served, to enter into cooperative agreements 
for the joint administration of affected river seg- 
ments. Land use prescriptions developed in the 
management plans would include all applicable 
provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
and the legislation or Secretarial Order that 
placed the river segments into the National Wild 
and Scenic Rivers System. Guidelines con- 
tained in Appendix 9 would be used in estab- 
lishing management prescriptions. Where des- 
ignated river segments are included within areas 
designated as wilderness, provisions of the 
Wilderness Act of 1 964 would be applied. 

BLM recognizes that water resources on most 
segments of the Virgin River system are already 
fully allocated. Where stream segments are des- 
ignated on public lands being managed under 
this Proposed Plan, BLM would continue to 
work with affected local, state, federal, and trib- 
al partners to identify instream flows necessary 
to meet critical resource needs including values 
related to the designation. BLM would then 
seek to jointly promote innovative strategies, 
community-based planning, and voluntary 
agreements with water users, under state law, to 
address those needs. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.60 



CHAPTER 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



Proposed Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern 

Where BLM determines that certain public land 
areas require special management to prevent 
irreparable damage to important historic, cultur- 
al, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, 
or other natural systems, it may, with appropri- 
ate public participation, designate such lands as 
Areas of critical environmental concern 
(ACECs). Ten ACECs would be established by 
approval of this Plan and are shown on Map 
2.17. The proposed City Creek ACEC, described 
in the 1995 draft Dixie Resource Management 
Plan to protect watershed values and special sta- 
tus species, is contained wholly within the 
Washington County HCP Reserve and would be 
fully protected under the provisions of the HCP. 
It is not carried forward in this Proposed Plan as 
an ACEC to avoid duplication in planning and 
management oversight. Lands within the HCP 
Reserve are proposed for eventual designation 
as a National Conservation Area. Management 
prescriptions for each proposed ACEC are listed 
below: 

Red Bluff Proposed ACEC (6,168 acres) 

This area contains the endangered dwarf bear- 
claw poppy and highly erodible saline soils at 
risk from extensive off-road travel, road prolifer- 
ation, human encroachment from adjacent 
urban areas, and continued pressure for land 
transfers to accommodate various forms of 
development. The following prescriptions 
would be applied to protect these vulnerable 
resources: 

• Category 3 (NSO) stipulations would be 
applied to fluid mineral leasing to avoid 
soil loss and irreparable impacts to poppy 
habitat from exploration, drilling, and 
lease mainlenance operations. 

• The area would be closed to fuelwood 
and mineral materials sales and designat- 
ed a right-of-way avoidance area. Should 
the Southern Transportation Corridor 
result in a spur from the area of the pro- 
posed Atkinville intersection to Old U.S. 



Highway 91 between Santa Clara and 
Ivins, BLM would work with project spon- 
sors to define an environmentally pre- 
ferred route. Any such development 
would be subject to further environmental 
study, consultation with the FWS, and a 
plan conformance determination. 

• BLM would recommend the area be with- 
drawn from mineral entry. Pending 
Secretarial approval of the withdrawal, 
mining plans of operation would be 
required for all mining exploration and 
activities other than casual use. 

• Motorized travel would be limited to des- 
ignated roads and trails. Fencing, signing, 
and barricades would be employed to 
prevent unauthorized vehicle access and 
impacts to the resources being protected. 
Existing fences would be maintained. 

• Applicable Standards for Rangeland 
Health, including monitoring and assess- 
ment programs, would be employed to 
determine if objectives developed in the 
recovery plan for protection and enhance- 
ment of the species were being met. If 
monitoring reveals the objectives and 
standards are not being met, BLM would 
work with user groups and interested par- 
ties to develop strategies and make adjust- 
ments in permitted land uses to the extent 
such were determined to be contributing 
factors. 

« BLM would continue to fund, conduct, or 
authorize field studies to monitor bear- 
claw poppy populations, trends, and habi- 
tat impacts. Public education programs 
would be supported in conjunction with 
the Washington County Habitat 
Conservation Plan to build increased 
understanding of the unique character, 
importance, and requirements of the 
plant. 

• Mountain bike use would be limited to a 
designated trail. BLM would work with 
user groups, affected agencies, and inter- 
ested parties to design a trail and redirect 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL E N V [ R O N M E N T A L IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.61 



CHAPTER 



PROPOSE 



RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



current use to avoid damage to bear-claw 
poppy populations. Trail approval and 
reconstruction would be subject to con- 
sultation with the FWS. 

• Because protection of the cryptogamic 
material occurring on the soil surface is 
needed to reduce unacceptable soil loss, 
BLM would manage authorized uses in 
the area so as to require the best manage- 
ment practices including the use of spe- 
cial equipment or construction of tempo- 
rary or permanent protective features. 

• Special recreation permits could be issued 
where site specific analysis determined 
that the authorized activity would not 
adversely affect the values for which the 
ACEC was designated. 

• Public lands in the ACEC would be 
retained in public ownership. Non-feder- 
al lands within the ACEC could be 
obtained through purchase, exchange, or 
donation where such would help to 
achieve management objectives for the 
area. Lands so acquired would be man- 
aged under the same prescriptions as 
would be applied to the remainder of the 
ACEC. 

Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce Proposed ACEC 
(4,281 acres) 

This area contains the endangered dwarf bear- 
claw poppy, the threatened siler pincushion cac- 
tus, important riparian values along the Fort 
Pearce Wash, historic sites, and highly erodible 
soils, all of which are at risk from off-road travel, 
road proliferation, urban growth, and human 
encroachment. The area also contains essential 
habitat for waterfowl, the gila monster, spotted 
bat, raptors, and other nongame species which 
have suffered from habitat loss caused by urban- 
ization and development in the St. George area. 
The following prescriptions would be applied to 
protect and improve these values: 

• Category 3 (NSO) stipulations would be 
applied to fluid mineral leasing to avoid 
soil loss and irreparable impacts to poppy 
habitat from exploration, drilling, and 
lease maintenance operations. 



The area would be closed to fuelwood 
and mineral materials sales and designat- 
ed a right-of-way avoidance area. BLM 
would work with sponsors of the Southern 
Transportation Corridor to define an envi- 
ronmentally preferred route through the 
area that would minimize impacts to the 
resources being protected. 

BLM would recommend the area be with- 
drawn from mineral entry. Pending 
Secretarial approval of the withdrawal, 
mining plans of operation would be 
required for all mining exploration and 
development activities other than casual 
use. 



• Motorized travel would be limited to des- 
ignated roads and trails. Fencing, barri- 
cading, and signing would be employed 
as necessary to eliminate unauthorized 
vehicle access and impacts to protected 
resources. 

• Mountain bike use would be limited to 
designated roads and trails. 

• Public lands in the ACEC would be 
retained in public ownership. Non-feder- 
al lands within the ACEC could be 
obtained through purchase, exchange, or 
donation where such would help to 
achieve management objectives for the 
area. Lands so acquired would be man- 
aged under the same prescriptions as 
would be applied to the remainder of the 
ACEC. 

• Special recreation permits could be issued 
where site specific analysis determined 
that the authorized activity would not 
adversely affect the values for which the 
ACEC was designated. 

• Additional prescriptions described in the 
discussion of the Sand Mountain Special 
Recreation Management Area in the 
Recreation section of this Plan would be 
applied to achieve objectives for the area. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.62 



CHAPTER 



R O P O S E D RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



Santa Clara/Gunlock Proposed ACEC 
(1,998 acres) 

This area contains numerous important resource 
values that need special protection as a result of 
extensive recreation use, off-road travel, tran- 
sient camping, and other forms of human 
encroachment (Utah Department of Natural 
Resources, 1995). Values include numerous 
Virgin Anasazi riverine sites. Southern Paiute 
sites, and rock art sites, many of which have 
been looted or vandalized. The Santa Clara 
River supports essential riparian resources, habi- 
tat for the Virgin spinedace minnov^/ and migra- 
tory and nongame birds, and potential habitat 
for the listed Southwestern willow flycatcher. 
Management objectives include protection of 
cultural resources, improvement and protection 
of riparian systems and floodplains, and restora- 
tion of habitats for listed and sensitive species. 
The following prescriptions would be applied to 
offer protection to the resources so identified: 
Selected archeological sites could be man- 
aged for public values and interpreted for edu- 
cational use. Other sites would continue to be 
managed for information potential unless specif- 
ic plan prescriptions establish other objectives 
in accordance with cultural resource policies. 
Surveillance and other law enforcement mea- 
sures would be increased to deter vandalism. 
Site steward programs would be employed to 
bring trained volunteers to monitor the sites and 
report violations or resource degradation. 
Cooperative agreements with local Indian tribes, 
government agencies, or qualified organizations 
could be used for interpreting, protecting, or 
otherwise managing archeological resources in 
their natural context where consistent with 
ACEC prescriptions. 

• BLM would collaborate with the Utah 
Department of Natural Resources, the 
Washington County Water Conservancy 
District, the FWS, and other interested 
parties in implementing the terms of the 
Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement 
and Strategy (April 11, 1995) as it affects 
the segment of the Santa Clara River in 
this ACEC. Among other things, this 
would include the reestablishment and 
protection of year-round flows in the 
Santa Clara River below Gunlock Dam, 



implementation of habitat improvements, 
eradication of nonindigenous fish, and 
monitoring and evaluation. 

• All applicable management prescriptions 
listed under the section in this Plan on 
Riparian Resources would be implement- 
ed in full to restore and protect the ripari- 
an values and associated habitats within 
this ACEC. 

• Lands outside of riparian zones would be 
placed under Category 2 special stipula- 
tions for fluid mineral leasing requiring 
submission and approval of a plan of 
development that protects surface and 
groundwater quality. 

• The area would be closed to fuelwood 
and mineral materials sales and designat- 
ed a right-of-way avoidance area. 

• Motorized travel would be limited to des- 
ignated roads and trails to help protect 
and restore riparian values and sensitive 
fish habitat. 

• Mountain bike use would be limited to 
existing roads and trails. 

• Mining plans of operation would be 
required for all mining exploration and 
activity other than casual use. 

• Public lands in the ACEC would be 
retained in public ownership. Any non- 
federal lands acquired by BLM within this 
area would be managed in accordance 
with ACEC prescriptions applied to the 
surrounding public lands. 

• This proposed ACEC includes lands within 
the Red Mountain Special Recreation 
Management Area. Where land use pre- 
scriptions for the two areas conflict on 
any given parcel, prescriptions for the 
ACEC would apply. 

• Special recreation permits could be issued 
when site-specific analysis determines 
activities thus authorized would not 
adversely affect the values for which the 
ACEC was designated. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.63 



CHAPTER 2 » PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMEN T 



• BLM would work with water users and 
affected local agencies to ensure that new 
or adjusted irrigation diversion points 
would be designed and located to mini- 
mize conflicts with mutual objectives for 
managing the area. 

Santa Clara River/Land Hill Proposed ACEC 
(1,645 acres) 

This area contains numerous important resource 
values that need special protection as a result of 
increasing recreation use, vandalism, pressure 
for land transfers, urban development, and other 
forms of human encroachment. Values include 
numerous Virgin Anasazi riverine sites and 
extensive prehistoric rock art, many of the for- 
mer having been vandalized. This segment of 
the Santa Clara River supports essential riparian 
resources, habitat for the Virgin spinedace and 
migratory and nongame birds, and potential 
habitat for the listed Southwestern willow fly- 
catcher. Management objectives would include 
protection of cultural resources through appro- 
priate interpretation, conservation, cooperative 
management, and research use; enhancement of 
habitats for the Virgin spinedace and other listed 
or sensitive species; and maintenance of proper- 
ly functioning riparian values. The following 
prescriptions would be applied to protect the 
resources identified: 

• Selected archeological sites would be 
managed for public values and interpreted 
for educational use. Other sites would 
continue to be managed for information 
potential unless specific plan prescriptions 
establish other objectives in accordance 
with cultural resource policies. Surveil- 
lance and other law enforcement mea- 
sures would be increased to deter vandal- 
ism. Site steward programs would be 
employed to bring trained volunteers to 
monitor the sites and report violations or 
resource degradation. Cooperative agree- 
ments with local Indian tribes, govern- 
ment agencies, and qualified organiza- 
tions would be used for interpreting, pro- 
tecting, or otherwise managing archeolog- 
ical resources and visitor uses in accor- 
dance with plans being developed for the 
proposed Santa Clara River Reserve. 



• BLM would collaborate with the Utah 
Department of Natural Resources, the 
Washington County Water Conservancy 
District, the FWS, and other interested 
parties in implementing the terms of the 
Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement 
and Strategy (April 11, 1995) as it affects 
the segment of the Santa Clara River in 
this ACEC. Among other things, this 
would include the reestablishment and 
protection of year-round flows in the 
Santa Clara River below Gunlock Dam, 
implementation of habitat improvements, 
eradication of nonindigenous fish, and 
monitoring and evaluation. 

• All applicable management prescriptions 
listed under the section in this Plan on 
Riparian Resources would be implement- 
ed in full to restore and protect the ripari- 
an values and associated habitats within 
this ACEC. 

• The area would be closed to fuelwood 
and mineral materials sales and designat- 
ed a right-of-way avoidance area. 

• Motorized travel would be limited to des- 
ignated roads and trails to prevent dam- 
age to cultural resource sites and sensitive 
riparian resources. Mountain bike use 
would be limited to existing roads and 
trails including single tracks. 

• Mining plans of operation would be 
required for all mining exploration and 
activity other than casual use. Category 3 
(NSO) stipulations would be applied to 
fluid mineral leasing to protect the fragile 
resources in this area. 

• Public lands in the ACEC would be 
retained in public ownership unless trans- 
fer would further management objectives 
for the area. Any non-federal lands 
acquired by BLM within the ACEC would 
be managed in accordance with ACEC 
prescriptions applied to the surrounding 
public lands. 

• Special recreation permits could be issued 
when site-specific analysis determines 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.64 



CHAPTER 



o p 



POSED RESOURCE MANAG E M E N T 



activities thus authorized would not 
adversely affect the values for which the 



ACEC was designated. 



• BLM would work with water users and 
affected local agencies to ensure that new 
or adjusted irrigation diversion points 
would be designed and located to mini- 
mize conflicts with mutual objectives for 
managing the area. 

• The area would have a VRM Class II 
designation. 

Lower Virgin River Proposed ACEC 
(1,822 acres) 

This proposed ACEC would be managed to 
improve and maintain riparian resources, habitat 
for the endangered woundfin minnow and 
Virgin River chub, and habitat for migratory and 
nongame birds, and also to protect cultural 
resources including numerous Virgin Anasazi 
sites. Southern Paiute sites, and rock art panels. 
These resources are at risk from increasing van- 
dalism, off-road travel, recreation, pressure for 
land transfers and urban development, and 
other forms of human encroachment. 

• Cultural resources would be managed and 
protected through appropriate interpreta- 
tion, conservation, cooperative manage- 
ment, and research. Surveillance and 
other law enforcement measures would 
be increased to deter vandalism. Site 
steward programs would be employed to 
bring trained volunteers to monitor the 
sites and report violations or resource 
degradation. Cooperative agreements 
with local Indian tribes, government agen- 
cies, and qualified organizations could be 
used for interpreting, protecting, or other- 
wise managing archeological resources 
and visitor uses. 

• BLM would collaborate with the 
Washington County Water Conservancy 
District, the Utah Department of Natural 
Resources, the FWS, participating munici- 
palities, and other interested parties in 
formulating and analyzing the proposed 
Virgin River Management Plan and the 



proposed Virgin River Basin Integrated 
Resource Management and Recovery 
Program as they affect the segment of the 
Virgin River in this ACEC. Among other 
things, BLM would support and pursue 
the reestablishment and protection of 
year-round flows, implementation of habi- 
tat improvements, eradication of non- 
indigenous fish, protection of floodplains, 
measures to improve water quality, and 
monitoring and evaluation. 

All applicable management prescriptions 
listed under the section in this Plan on 
Riparian Resources would be implement- 
ed to restore and protect the riparian val- 
ues and associated habitats within this 
ACEC. 

Applicable Standards for Rangeland 
Health, including monitoring and assess- 
ment programs, would be employed to 
determine if management objectives for 
this ACEC and objectives of the Virgin 
River Fishes Recovery Plan were being 
met. If monitoring reveals the objectives 
and standards are not being met, adjust- 
ments in permitted land uses would be 
made to the extent such are determined to 
be contributing factors. If authorized 
grazing practices are determined to 
impede attainment of the standards, BLM 
would work with permittees and other 
interested parties to develop strategies and 
adjust grazing use accordingly. Changes 
could include, but would not be limited 
to, adjusting the season of use to mini- 
mize direct competition, allotment recate- 
gorization, and combining allotments or 
installing range developments to reduce 
grazing pressure in key areas. 

The ACEC would be closed to fuelwood 
and mineral materials sales and designat- 
ed a right-of-way avoidance area. 

Motorized travel would be limited to des- 
ignated roads and trails to minimize dis- 
turbance to riparian resources and listed 
species habitats. 

Mining plans of operation would be 
required for all mining exploration and 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.65 



CHAPTER 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



activity other than casual use. Category 3 
(NSO) stipulations would be applied to 
fluid mineral leasing to prevent impacts to 
the sensitive riparian, wildlife, and cultur- 
al resources. 

• Public lands in the ACEC would be 
retained in public ownership. 

• Visitor use would be managed as neces- 
sary to achieve objectives for riparian 
restoration and protection of archeologi- 
cal resources. Special recreation permits 
could be issued when site-specific analy- 
sis determines activities thus authorized 
would not adversely affect the values for 
which the ACEC was designated. 

• BLM would work with water users and 
affected local agencies to ensure that new 
or adjusted irrigation diversion points 
would be designed and located to mini- 
mize conflicts with mutual objectives for 
managing the area. 

Little Creek Mountain Proposed ACEC 
(19,302 acres) 

This ACEC contains extensive archeology con- 
sisting primarily of Anasazi structural sites with 
examples of rock art and shelter sites. Many of 
the sites have been abused, while many others 
have been inventoried or studied by local 
researchers and universities. Up to 100 sites per 
section have been recorded on the mesa 
(USDI/BLM, 1 988). Management of this area 
would emphasize protection and interpretation 
of archeological resources. Selected sites could 
be designated for educational use and research. 
Other sites could be identified for conservation 
to preserve the resources for the enjoyment of 
future generations and to conform to the cultur- 
al and religious desires of present-day Indian 
tribes. Objectives and prescriptions identified in 
the section of this Plan under Cultural and 
Paleontological Resources would be employed 
as appropriate to the management of cultural 
resources in the ACEC. Protection would also 
be afforded through the following management 
prescriptions: 

• Surveillance and other law enforcement 
measures would be used to deter vandal- 



ism. Site steward programs would be 
employed to bring trained volunteers to 
monitor the sites and report violations or 
resource degradation. 

Public lands within the ACEC boundary 
would be retained in public ownership. 
Non-federal lands in the proposed ACEC 
could be acquired through purchase, 
exchange, or donation to further the 
accomplishment of resource objectives 
and to increase manageability of the area. 
Any lands acquired by BLM within the 
ACEC would be managed in accordance 
with applicable ACEC prescriptions. 

Full, onsite cultural resource inventories 
would be required prior to surface dis- 
turbing activity and avoidance or mitiga- 
tion of sites so recorded after consultation 
with the Utah Historic Preservation 
Officer. 

Mining plans of operation would be 
required for all mining exploration and 
development activities other than casual 
use to allow analysis of potential impacts 
and development of mitigation. 

Motorized travel would be limited to 
existing roads and trails to lessen impacts 
to the extensive cultural resources 
throughout the area. BLM would work 
with Washington County officials to iden- 
tify jeep trails needing closure for safety 
and resource protection and follow the 
requirements of Utah State law and feder- 
al regulation in implementing the clo- 
sures. 

Except for existing and planned opera- 
tions at the Cinder Knoll, the area would 
be closed to mineral materials sales. 

Except for approved communication sites 
and associated access, public lands 
would be designated a right-of-way avoid- 
ance area. 

Crucial deer winter range within the area 
would be further protected by Category 2 
fluid mineral leasing stipulations closing 
the lands to exploration and development 
from November 1 to April 15. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.66 



C H APTE R 



PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



• Special recreation permits could be issued 
where site-specific analysis determined 
that the authorized activity would not 
adversely affect the values for which the 
ACEC was designated. 

Canaan Mountain Proposed ACEC 
(31,355 acres) 

Canaan Mountain and the associated Vermillion 
Cliffs contain some of the most rugged topogra- 
phy and spectacular scenic values in 
Washington County outside of Zion National 
Park. The peaks and cliffs form the south gate- 
way to the park and serve as a destination point 
for an increasing number of outdoor recreation- 
ists. Numerous archeological sites are also 
found along the base of many of the cliffs. 
Historic structures are found in the higher eleva- 
tions. This proposed ACEC would be managed 
to protect these exceptional scenic values, cul- 
tural resources, and primitive recreation oppor- 
tunities. Management prescriptions for the area 
are defined in this Proposed Plan under the sec- 
tion on the Canaan Mountain Special 
Recreation Management Area which coincides 
geographically with the proposed ACEC. The 
following additional prescriptions would also be 
applied: 

• Public lands in the proposed ACEC would 
be retained in public ownership unless 
transfer would further management objec- 
tives for the area or accomplish overriding 
public purposes. Non-federal lands with- 
in the ACEC could be obtained through 
purchase, exchange, or donation where 
such would help to achieve management 
objectives for the area. Lands so acquired 
would be managed under the same pre- 
scriptions as would be applied to the 
remainder of the ACEC. 

• Public lands in the area would be desig- 
nated a right-of-way avoidance area to 
protect scenic values and avoid impacts 
to the natural setting. They would also be 
assigned a VRM Class I designation. 

• The area would be closed to fuel wood 
and mineral materials sales. Category 3 
(NSO) stipulations would be applied to 
fluid mineral leasing to protect scenic and 



natural values and to preserve the primi- 
tive character of the landscape. 

• All lands within the proposed ACEC have 
been classified as primitive and would be 
closed to mountain bike use and motor- 
ized travel to preserve natural values and 
opportunities for primitive recreation. 

• Mining plans of operation would be 
required for all mining exploration and 
activity other than casual use. 

• Special recreation permits could be issued 
where site-specific analysis determined 
that the authorized activity would not 
adversely affect the values for which the 
ACEC was designated. 

Red Mountain Proposed ACEC (4,854 acres) 

Red Mountain serves as a spectacular backdrop 
to the communities of Ivins and Santa Clara and 
has significance to members of local Indian 
tribes. The escarpment overshadows the west 
boundary of theTuacahn Center and portions of 
Snow Canyon State Park and, as such, adds to 
the natural beauty of both developments. The 
intent of this proposed ACEC would be to pre- 
serve the scenic cliff face from visible distur- 
bance. Where the proposed ACEC overlaps 
with the Red Mountain Special Recreation 
Management Area, recreation prescriptions 
would be subordinate to ACEC objectives and 
prescriptions. ACEC prescriptions would be as 
follows: 

• The area would be placed in a fluid min- 
eral leasing Category 3 (NSO) to prevent 
scarring or disturbance from vehicle 
access, exploration, or drilling operations. 

• Public lands in the area would be closed 
to off-road travel to preserve the natural 
appearance of the cliff face. 

• Public lands in the area would be closed 
to fuelwood and mineral materials sales 
and designated a right-of-way avoidance 
area. 

• Mining plans of operation would be 
required for all mining exploration and 
activity other than casual use. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.67 



CHAPTER 2 • PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



• BLM would place the lands in VRM Class I. 

• Special recreation permits could be issued 
where site-specific analysis shows that the 
authorized activity would not adversely 
affect the values for which the ACEC was 
designated. BLM would monitor com- 
mercial activity in the area and impose 
additional limits on the amount of such 
use as would be necessary to preserve 
such values. 

• Public lands in the proposed ACEC would 
be retained in public ownership. Non- 
federal lands within the ACEC could be 
obtained through purchase, exchange, or 
donation where such would help to 
achieve management objectives for the 
area. Lands so acquired would be man- 
aged under the same prescriptions as 
would be applied to the remainder of the 
ACEC. 

Beaver Dam Slope Proposed ACEC 

(48,519 acres) 

This proposed ACEC contains critical habitat for 
the threatened desert tortoise, the proper man- 
agement of which is considered to be essential 
for the continued survival of the population in 
this part of the Northeastern Mojave Recovery 
Unit (USDI/FWS, 1994). It also contains habitat 
for a diversity of desert plant and animal 
species, many of which are listed by state or 
federal agencies as special status species. 
Included in the area are the Joshua Tree 
National Natural Landmark and the Woodbury 
Desert Study Area. The study area has been the 
focus of desert wildlife and ecosystem research 
since the 1 930s. Values within the ACEC are at 
risk from increasing levels of human encroach- 
ment, off-road travel, and various forms of out- 
door recreation. Although some recent invento- 
ries suggest currently stable populations, 
researchers have noted declines in desert tor- 
toise densities since the 1970s (USDI/FWS, 
1994) and cite disease, predation, grazing con- 
flicts, and increased human activity as probable 
contributing factors. Actions need to be taken 
to prevent additional habitat loss or disturbance. 
Further research also needs to be completed to 
more clearly define the source and extent of 
impacts so that land and resource managers 



may make informed decisions on future man- 
agement of the area. 

The proposed boundaries and management pre- 
scriptions for the ACEC have been developed in 
consultation with state and federal agencies in 
Utah, Arizona, and Nevada to achieve a coordi- 
nated approach to managing critical habitats for 
the desert tortoise and achieving recovery 
objectives throughout the Northeastern Mojave 
Unit. BLM would continue to work with local, 
state, and federal partners, affected user groups, 
and other interested parties to further define 
specific objectives and implement planned 
actions to achieve the goals of the Desert 
Tortoise Recovery Plan, the Beaver Dam Slope 
Habitat Management Plan, and other applicable 
planning efforts. Moreover, BLM would seek to 
maintain the values associated with the Joshua 
Tree National Natural Landmark and the 
Woodbury Desert Study Area and support addi- 
tional research related to the management of 
desert ecosystems in the area. 

Detailed prescriptions for desert tortoise man- 
agement in the ACEC are described in the dis- 
cussion on desert tortoises under Special Status 
Species in the section of this Plan on Fish and 
Wildlife Habitat Management. Such prescrip- 
tions would also serve to meet objectives for 
nontortoise issues identified on the Slope 
including maintaining the overall health of the 
desert ecosystem, improving habitats for other 
special status plants and animals, and preserv- 
ing the natural values and research capabilities 
of the Natural Landmark and the Woodbury 
Desert Study Area. The ACEC includes two spe- 
cial management areas and a portion of the 
Woodbury Desert Study Area where manage- 
ment would focus on nontortoise related issues. 
In accordance with the outcome of consultation 
with the Utah DWR and the FWS, all manage- 
ment prescriptions for the ACEC would be 
applied in these areas except for spring grazing 
restrictions described in the detailed prescrip- 
tions referenced earlier. 

BLM would continue to authorize and support 
research needed to determine habitat require- 
ments, causes of increased mortality, and other 
essential factors related to the management of 
the desert tortoise and its eventual recovery. 
BLM would also collaborate with the Utah 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL [MPACT STATEMENT 



2.68 



CHAPTER 2 « PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



DWR, the FWS, university researchers, and 
other interested parties in developing and imple- 
menting monitoring studies that would evaluate 
population trends, tortoise health, vegetation 
condition and trend, and other factors needed to 
assess the effectiveness of management actions. 
Where it is determined that recovery objectives 
are not being met, BLM would work with its 
interested partners to determine the cause of 
such failure and to adjust its management pre- 
scriptions accordingly. 

BLM would also work with state and local agen- 
cies, school districts, and interested citizen 
groups to develop educational programs to 
increase public awareness of habitat require- 
ments, desert ecosystems, reasons for protective 
management, and other factors related to 
species recovery. 

Upper Beaver Dam Wash Proposed ACEC 
(33,063 acres) 

The West Fork of the Beaver Dam Wash main- 
tains good water quality throughout its upper 
reaches where it flows through granitic bedrock. 
The stream supports both warm and cold water 
fisheries, maintains a quality riparian system, 
and constitutes potential habitat for the Virgin 
spinedace and the endangered Southwestern 
willow flycatcher. Beside providing water for 
agricultural use near the community of 
Motoqua, it feeds groundwater aquifers being 
considered for potential well-field development 
to provide culinary water for St. George and 
neighboring communities. High potential for 
precious metals within the watershed spawns 
continued interest in exploration and further 
mineral development. The proposed ACEC 
would be managed to preserve watershed 
integrity and water quality and to maintain or 
improve riparian resources and potential habi- 
tats for the Virgin spinedace and Southwestern 
willow flycatcher. The following prescriptions 
would be applied: 

• BLM would collaborate with the Utah 
DWR, the Nevada Division of Wildlife, 
the Washington County Water 
Conservancy District, the FWS, and other 
interested parties in implementing the 
Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement 
and Strategy (April 11, 1995) as it affects 



the segment of the Upper Beaver Dam 
Wash in this ACEC. Among other things, 
this would entail habitat enhancement, 
reintroduction of spinedace to the stream, 
eradication of nonindigenous fish along 
appropriate stretches, and monitoring and 
evaluation. 

Applicable Standards for Rangeland 
Health, including monitoring and assess- 
ment programs, would be employed to 
determine if objectives developed for pro- 
tection and enhancement of the water- 
shed and special status species were 
being met. If monitoring reveals the 
objectives and standards are not being 
met, BLM would work with user groups 
and interested parties to develop strategies 
and make adjustments in land uses to the 
extent such are determined to be con- 
tributing factors. 

The area would be closed to mineral 
materials sales and designated a right-of- 
way avoidance area. 

The area would remain open to fuelwood 
disposal in designated areas with stipula- 
tions to protect watershed and riparian 
values. 

Mining plans of operation would be 
required for all mining exploration and 
activities other than casual use. The area 
would be closed to off-highway travel on 
8,325 acres and limited to designated 
roads and trails on 22,035 acres to pro- 
tect watershed, riparian, and natural val- 
ues and potential Southwestern willow 
flycatcher habitat. 

' Lands closed to off-road travel would be 
placed under Category 3 (NSO) stipula- 
tions for fluid mineral leasing to maintain 
the primitive character of the lands and to 
protect the upper watershed from impacts 
of exploration and development. Riparian 
zones would also be placed under 
Category 3 (NSO) stipulations. All other 
lands in the ACEC would be placed under 
Category 2 special stipulations for fluid 
mineral leasing requiring submission and 
approval of a plan of development to pro- 
tect surface and groundwater quality. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.69 



CHAPTER 2 » PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMEN T 



• All applicable management prescriptions 
listed under the section in this plan on 
Riparian Resources would be implement- 
ed to restore and protect the riparian val- 
ues and associated habitats within this 
ACEC. 

• Public lands in the ACEC would be 
retained. Non-federal lands could be 
obtained through purchase, exchange, or 
donation to help to achieve management 
objectives for the area. Lands so acquired 
would be managed in accordance with 
the same prescriptions as would be 
applied to the remainder of the ACEC. 

• Special recreation permits could be issued 
when site-specific analysis determines 
activities thus authorized would not 
adversely affect the values for which the 
ACEC was designated. 

• BLM would work with water users and 
affected local agencies to ensure that new 
or adjusted irrigation diversion points 
would be designed and located to mini- 
mize conflicts with mutual objectives for 
managing the area. 

Native American Coordination 

Public lands in Washington County and the sur- 
rounding region were used extensively in pre- 
historic times by Southern Paiute Indians and 
contain cultural and archeological features that 
are of great value to current members of the 
Paiute Tribe (USDl/BLM, 1 988). Public lands 
surround the Shivwits (Paiute) Indian 
Reservation and provide access to numerous use 
areas and sites of religious and ceremonial 
importance, not only to the Shivwits Band but to 
other Native American groups associated with 
the Paiute culture. BLM 's objective for Native 
American coordination would be to ensure 
compliance with the numerous laws, executive 
orders, and directives applicable to consultation 
and self-determination and to provide continued 
access to public lands for religious and ceremo- 
nial purposes. 

BLM would enter into cooperative agreements 
with the Shivwits Band, the Paiute Tribe of Utah, 
and/or the Bureau of Indian Affairs to foster 



improved coordination and, where appropriate, 
to accomplish programs of mutual interest con- 
cerning the use and management of lands con- 
taining sacred sites or resources important to 
members of the tribe. Public lands containing 
known sacred sites and important use areas 
would generally be retained in public owner- 
ship unless, as a result of consultation with 
affected tribes, BLM determines that a change of 
ownership is in the public interest and accom- 
plishes other objectives that outweigh those 
served by retention. Where sacred sites are 
made known to BLM, their locations would be 
kept confidential to the extent possible under 
law to avoid desecration or unnecessary 
encroachment. 

Native Americans would be allowed access to 
public lands for religious or ceremonial purpos- 
es unless the access desired is expressly prohib- 
ited by law. This right of access would include 
the right to collect vegetative and mineral 
resources (that which can be gathered or carried 
by hand) needed to accomplish the intended 
purposes. Motorized access for such purposes 
into public land areas administratively closed to 
vehicle use would only be allowed with prior 
written approval from BLM's authorized officer 
in accordance with federal regulations at 43 
CFR 8340.0-5(h). Such approval would be con- 
tingent upon the absence of reasonable alterna- 
tives and the ability to avoid impacts to 
resources being protected. 

BLM would continue to work with the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, the Shivwits Band, and the Paiute 
Tribe in providing rights-of-way, land use autho- 
rizations, or agreements on public lands needed 
to accomplish objectives for economic develop- 
ment and self-determination or to otherwise 
ensure the health, safety, and well-being of 
members of the tribe. Such authorizations 
would be subject to appropriate environmental 
analysis and public notification. 

BLM would continue to provide assistance to 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Shivwits 
Band of Paiutes regarding mineral development, 
production verification, and other applicable 
resource management issues to the extent BLM 
has the capability to do so. Among other 
things, BLM would continue to support achieve- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.70 



C H A P T E R 2 » PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 



ment of the goals of the Paiute Indian Tribe's 
Strategic Economic Development Plan to the 
extent such are consistent with federal laws, reg- 
ulations, and the decisions of this Proposed 
Plan. 

Where public lands and resources are involved, 
BLM would ensure compliance with the Native 
American Graves Protection and Repatriation 
Act and other statutes and associated regula- 
tions concerning consultation on and disposi- 
tion of Native American human remains, funer- 
ary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural 
patrimony. 

Zion National Park Coordination 

Zion National Park is one of the most important 
economic and ecologic assets in Washington 
County and possesses scenic, geologic, natural, 
recreational, and historic characteristics of 
national significance. It is a major destination 
point with annual visitation exceeding 2.5 mil- 
lion people (Don Falvey, personal communica- 
tion, 1997). Visitors reflect local, regional, 
national, and international origins. 

Zion National Park is, to a large degree, sur- 
rounded by public lands with some intermin- 
gled state and privately owned properties. 
These public lands provide approaches to the 
park and help set the tone, aesthetically and 
otherwise, for the park visitor experience. 
Because many of the surrounding lands have 
been subject to changing use patterns, new 
development, and increased visitation, adjacent 
park features and resources have been placed at 
greater risk from encroachment, litter, unautho- 
rized use, and impairment of important view- 
sheds. These risks, in addition to increased visi- 
tor use of remote trailheads and park access 
points, have made it necessary for park officials 
to increase management presence at or near 
park boundaries for visitor contact, enforce- 
ment, and fee collection. Additional collabora- 
tion is needed between park officials and adja- 
cent land managers to protect the integrity of 
important park resources and to lessen future 
impacts to the quality of the visitor experience. 

To cope with serious overcrowding during peak 
visitation periods and reduce associated impacts 
to park resources, the National Park Service pre- 



pared a Development Concept Plan in 1994 
which includes a transportation component that 
establishes an innovative partnership with adja- 
cent communities, businesses, and landowners 
to remove a significant amount of vehicles and 
traffic from key areas of the park. Among other 
things, the plan entails the development of a 
shuttle system with visitor parking and shuttle 
stops placed outside of park boundaries at loca- 
tions where visitors naturally congregate for 
other purposes and which complement existing 
and planned businesses providing visitor ser- 
vices and support. One visitor contact point is 
planned on public lands west of the community 
of Rockville for the purpose of orienting new 
visitors to the shuttle system and its operation. 

It is BLM's objective to manage public lands in 
the immediate vicinity of Zion National park so 
as to complement park resources and programs 
in collaboration with affected communities, 
agencies, landowners, and citizen groups. The 
following prescriptions would be applied: 

• The corridor along State Scenic Highway 
9 approaching Zion National Park from 
the west would be preserved by retaining 
public lands in view of the highway in 
public ownership from the top of 
LaVerkin Hill to the south entrance of the 
park. Outside of 240 acres identified for 
transfer in or near the Town of Virgin, land 
transfers could be approved only to meet 
essential public and municipal purposes 
that would not seriously degrade the 
scenic values of the corridor. Public 
lands within the corridor would be classi- 
fied VRM Class II. Rights-of-way for 
essential access, utilities, and municipal 
projects would be considered to be within 
the scope of visual management objec- 
tives where measures could be applied 
such as screening, design modifications, 
and surface rehabilitation to reduce visual 
impacts to an acceptable level. 

• BLM would work with park managers to 
evaluate potential sites on public lands for 
a visitor contact station and ranger resi- 
dence near the park boundary at North 
Creek to facilitate visitor information and 
management. After appropriate environ- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.71 



CHAPTER 2 « PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAG E M E N T 



mental analysis and a plan conformance 
determination, public lands could be 
transferred to Park Service management 
for such purposes through cooperative 
agreement, withdrawal, or right-of-way. 

Small, isolated parcels of public land con- 
tiguous to the park boundary and which 
are found to be difficult and uneconomic 
for BLM to manage could be placed 
under joint management through cooper- 
ative management agreement or other 
appropriate mechanism. In such cases, 
both agencies would jointly determine 
that the action would be in the public 
interest and needed to increase on-the- 
ground presence for visitor management 
or resource protection. Lands subject to 
active grazing or mineral use would 
generally not be considered for such 
agreements. 

BLM would work with the National Park 
Service, the Utah Department of 
Transportation (UDOT), community lead- 
ers, nonprofit organizations, and citizen 
groups in furthering the goals of the park 
transportation plan. Among other things, 
BLM would work with member communi- 
ties and organizations in the Grafton 
Heritage Partnership in formulating plans 
for up to 80 acres of public land immedi- 
ately north of Grafton for a visitor contact 
station to provide essential information on 
the shuttle system and to provide visitor 
access to the Grafton restoration project 



and riparian improvement proposal. After 
appropriate environmental analysis and a 
plan conformance determination, such 
lands could be made available through 
cooperative management agreement, 
withdrawal, or other applicable mecha- 
nism. BLM would work with community 
partners and the Utah DOT to evaluate 
relocation or relinquishment of the exist- 
ing material site right-of-way. 

BLM would work with park managers and 
other affected local, state, or federal agen- 
cies to jointly conduct studies, make land 
use recommendations, and develop pro- 
grams needed to achieve objectives called 
for in this Proposed Plan, the 
Development Concept Plan, and the Zion 
National Park Visitor Management and 
Resource Protection Plan scheduled for 
completion in 1999. 

As part of the congressionally mandated 
Sand Hollow exchange, BLM acquired 
title in behalf of the United States to pri- 
vate lands known as the Smith Ranch 
south of the Kolob section of the park. 
Congressional intent in having BLM 
acquire this property was to provide park 
managers with lands that could be used 
to consummate an exchange that would 
result in the acquisition of key, privately- 
owned inhoidings on the west side of the 
park. BLM would continue to support 
park officials in achieving this important 
objective. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



2.72 



o 

o 



> 
z 

n 

2 






> 
z 



POTENTIAL LAND ACQUISITION 

AND TRANSFER 
■ Acquisition 
g Transfer Lands 

(Completed, in Progress, or Projected) 




R19W 



o 

c 



o 

c 



> 

CI 






o 
z 



PROPOSED UTILITY CORRIDORS 
AND COMMUNICATION SITES 



Proposed Utility Corridor 
Communication Sites 




/ 



R19W 



R18W 



R17W 



R16W 



A 



R15W R14W R13W R12W 

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Miles 



R11 W 



R 10W 



R9W 

MAP 2.2 



o 
o 



RIGHTS-OF-WAY 
AVOIDANCE AND EXCLUSION AREAS 

^B Exclusion Areas 
Avoidance Areas 




R 10W 



R9 W 

MAP 2.3 



o 









R9 W 

MAP 2.4 



o 

c 



o 
o 






^ 
^ 



z 
> 



-h—i-c 






FLUID MINERALS 

I ) Open with Standard Stipulations 
[ I Category 2 - Special Stipulations 

Category 3 - No Surface Occupancy 

Closed to Leasing 







"(^ Ilolob 

Resenoir 



! ''J 





R18W R17W R16W R15W 

2 4 6 



A 



R14W R13W R12W 

10 12 14 16 18 20 iVIilBS 



R11 W 



R10W 



R9W 

MAP 2.5 



z 

> 
a 



CO 






LOCATABLE MINERALS MANAGEMENT 

I I Open 

I I Restricted 

|f33 Plans of Operations 

^m Closed 




o 



o 

c 



z 






z 
< 



O 
z 



MINERAL MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 

D3 Open 

Restricted 
Closed 




o 

-o 

o 



> 

n 



<■ 

O 

z 
2 

z 



*■ 

n 



RIPARIAN AREAS AND 
POTENTIAL RESERVOIR SITES 




R 19W 



o 
c 



js3 

05 




R9W 

MAP 2.9 



> 



03 
N3 





2 




R19W 



R18W 



R17 W 



R16W 



A 



R15W R14W R13W R12W 

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Miles 



R11 W 



R10W 



R9W 

MAP 2.10 



2 
> 

z 

n 

2 



03 



2 

m 

2 



MOUNTAIN BIKE DESIGNATIONS 



rn Open for Mountain Bike Use 
I I Open for Use on Existing Roads and Trails 
^H Open for Use on Designated Roads and Trails 
^H Closed to Mountain Bike Use 




R 19W 



R9 W 

MAP 2.11 





s 



05 
4^ 



> 
It 

a 



2 

> 






O 
z 

2 



(0 
CO 



CO 

m 

H 




DiXIE N 



% r I o N A I. 
\ ■■■ 



SPECIAL RECREATION 
MANAGEMENT AREAS 

SRMA 



F O R E S 1' 



■ / I 




@ 






z^'" I BRAVER DAM 
/ \ J- M'1LDER.N; 

















SVGeorge 




' 4 




/U.^.^^ 


^ 




/ / 












>' ^' 





-'-0-fy' 



: 7 



R19W 



R18W 



R17W 




A 



R16W R15W R14W R13W R12W 

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Miles 



JJ 



R9W 

MAP 2.12 



03 



OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE 
DESIGNATIONS 

[ I Open for OHV Use 

I I Open for Use on Existing Roads and Trails 
0*^ Open for Use on Designated Roads and Trails 
^m Closed to OHV Use 




R10W 



R9W 

MAP 2.13 



05 

0^ 



-.„.,.! 



VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

^g Class 1 

3 Class 2 

Class 3 

r^ Class 4 



y 



;iU:f 



R19W 




R10W 



R9W 

MAP 2.14 



o 

c 

7i 



o 

c 



z 

> 

s 



03 



r 



Z 
< 

o 

z 




R19W 



R17 W 



R16W 



A 



R15W R14W R13W R12W 

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Miles 



R10W 



R9W 

MAP 2.15 



o 

c 



03 
05 



V) 



-..I 






R19W 




D ! S r E N 



\ TION A I, 



¥ O R K S 1' 



pfc:!? 









Resenmr 't^ 






ELIGIBLE AND SUITABLE 
WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SEGMENTS 

^B Eligible and Suitable River Segments 

^H Eligible River Segments Not Found Suitable 



.\v* 



-¥' 



: R Si ;j F 






® 



^1„„1 



i BEAVEH DAiM MO 
■■ ^ WILDERNESS 



■~id 



si/George / 




s 


r ,; 


J y 


,* 


'f 






R18W R17W R16W R15W 

2 4 6 



A 



R14W R13W R12W 

10 12 14 16 18 20 Miles 



R11 W 



R10W 



R9W 

MAP 2.16 




R19 W 




Cultural Resources Are At Risk From Vandalism 
and Urban Encroachment 

Over 10,000 archeological sites are estimated to occur on public lands within Washington 

County. Many have been vandalized or looted. BLM would seek to employ reasonable measures 

and land use controls needed to reduce impacts from urbanization and human encroachment. 

The petroglyphs shown here are located along the Santa Clara River and would be protected 

under management prescriptions for the Land Hill Area of Critical Environmental Concern and 

through the efforts of volunteers from the communities of Ivins and Santa Clara. 



..Sui^j, 



_^_jj 



/Jih.JiUyLi;^lii 



•cJk^LiiJ^ot^.... 



Introduction 

This chapter analyzes the environmental 
impacts of the Proposed Plan management deci- 
sions presented in Chapter 2. Since the majori- 
ty of the decisions provide overall management 
emphasis and do not invariably propose specific 
on-the-ground projects or actions, the environ- 
mental consequences of the alternatives are 
often expressed in comparative, general terms. 
In most cases, subsequent analysis would be 
required to implement resource management 
decisions. More detailed or site-specific studies 
and appropriate environmental documents 
would be prepared in compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 
its implementing regulations as the need arises. 

Impacts described include analysis of the direct, 
indirect, and cumulative impacts of the pro- 
posed actions. Where applicable, the short- 
term or long-term nature of the impact is 
described. 

Short-term impacts occur after the project is in 
place and may continue for a period of up to 5 
years. Long-term impacts can occur up to 15 
years, or longer, after the project is in place. 
Immediate impacts are those occurring during 
the construction or start-up phase of a project. 
Impacts described in this chapter are usually 
direct and long-term, unless otherwise 
indicated. 

Only those planned actions related to issues that 
result in significant impacts or changes are ana- 
lyzed in detail. The Scoping of Issues for 
Environmental Analysis section provides a brief 
overview and discussion of: 1) impacts that will 
be analyzed in detail, as well as 2) a brief 
analysis of those particular programs or 
resources that were determined, through inter- 
disciplinary evaluation, to have minimal, 
insignificant impacts as a result of the planned 
actions. 

A Reasonably Foreseeable Action (RFA) is a 
potential future action where specific alloca- 



tions cannot be determined during development 
of the planned actions. RFAs are developed 
through interdisciplinary team input using past 
and present information to make an informed 
estimate of the potential action and its future 
impacts. In developing the RFAs, the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) considered current 
resource conditions and trends, the restrictions 
or opportunities provided by the planned 
actions, and known or potential projects and 
proposals for use of the public lands in the 
Dixie Resource Area. The RFAs are not actual 
allocations but a best guess or a guideline for 
what those allocations may be in the future. 
RFAs are also used to help predict cumulative 
impacts. 

Cumulative impacts occur when there are multi- 
ple influences on the same values. The incre- 
mental impacts of the management objectives in 
each of the alternatives presented, when com- 
bined with past, present, and future actions, 
have been considered in the preparation of this 
Dixie Resource Area Proposed Resource 
Management Plan and Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (Proposed Plan). As stated in 
40 CFR 1.508.7: "...'cumulative impact' is the 
impact on the environment which results from 
the incremental impact of the action when 
added to other past, present, and reasonably 
foreseeable future actions regardless of what 
agency (federal or non- federal) or person 
undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 
impacts can result from individually minor but 
collectively significant actions taking place over 
a period of time...." For purposes of this rule, 
impacts and effects are synonymous. The pri- 
mary geographic area that could be cumulative- 
ly affected by a combination of decisions and 
actions by BLM in the resource area and other 
agencies or persons is primarily within the 
boundaries of Washington County, Utah. 

It is the policy of the BLM to identify any 
unavoidable and residual adverse effects created 
by the planned actions of the Proposed Plan. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.1 



CHAPTER 3 « ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 
resources are described at the end of this analy- 
sis. Irreversible commitments of resources are 
the result of actions in which changes to 
resources are considered permanent. Irretriev- 
able commitments of resources result from 
actions in which resources are considered 
permanently lost. 

Mitigating measures designed to avoid or reduce 
the environmental impacts were incorporated 
into the Proposed Plan. 

Analysis Assumptions 
and Guidelines 

Assumptions set forth the parameters necessary 
to guide the impact analysis. The assumptions 
should not be interpreted as constraining or 
redefining the management actions. 

The general analysis assumptions for this 
Proposed Plan are as follows: 

1 . BLM funding and implementation of numer- 
ous actions identified within the Proposed 
Plan would continue to be a challenge and 
cooperative agreements and management 
with partnerships would be pursued wher- 
ever possible. 

2. All decisions, projects, activities, and miti- 
gation for the Proposed Plan would be in 
accordance with Standard Procedures 
Applied to Surface Disturbing Activities 
(Appendix 1), and other applicable laws, 
regulations, rules, and policies. 

3. Any projects authorized by BLM would be 
required to obtain the necessary permits 
and authorizations from other federal, state, 
and local agencies. 

4. Additional NEPA analysis would be required 
for the majority of decisions in the Proposed 
Plan to determine the impacts from site-spe- 
cific actions (activity plans) and to identify 
additional mitigating measures. 

5. The designation of all or part of the 
Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) have been 
analyzed in the Utah BLM Statewide 
Wilderness Final Environmental Impact 



Statement (FEIS), 1990. This Proposed Plan 
does not evaluate the impacts of wilderness 
management. This Proposed Plan is based on 
the assumption that WSAs would be released 
from wilderness review by Congress and 
would be managed according to the planned 
actions for the other resource programs. 

6. Implementation of the Proposed Plan would 
be subject to all valid existing rights. 

7. Lands identified for transfer would go into 
state or private ownership. Generally, lands 
would be used for residential, commercial, 
industrial, or public purposes. Lands used 
for public purposes under the Recreation 
and Public Purposes Act are generally trans- 
ferred to local governmental entities. 

8. Demand for recreational activities, vegeta- 
tive resources, and wildlife (nonconsump- 
tive and consumptive) use, as well as water 
needs would increase. 

9. No exploration or development of coal or 
geothermal leases would occur during the 
planning horizon. 

1 0. The average acre per Animal Unit Month 
(AUM) in the resource area is 20 

acres/AUM. 

1 1 . Future rangeland improvement projects or 
other development could disturb the follow- 
ing acreage (Table 3-1): 



TABLE 3-1 • Disturbance Ass 


jmptions 


MANAGEMENT 
ACTIVITY 


DISTURBED 
ACRES 


Rangeland Improvemcnl 
(livestock fence) 


0.5 acre/mile 


Corridors (ulility 

construction activities) 


1.5 acres/mile 


Recreation Facilities 
(l<iosk or sign) 


0.25 acre/each 


Infrastructure 

(road - 30' widlh) 


3.6 acres/mile 


Infrastructure 

(road - 60' widlh) 


7.2 acres/mile 


Infrastructure (road crossing 
riparian zone) 


0.25 acre/crossing 


Infrastructure (trail) 


0.75 acre/mile 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.2 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



Scoping of Issues 

In compliance with the Council for 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for 
implementation of NEPA, this section identifies 
important issues that are the focus of this analy- 
sis and eliminates other less important issues 
from detailed study with a brief discussion of 
why they are not analyzed in detail. The issues 
discussed below were identified through the 
scoping process. A BLM interdisciplinary team 
process was used to identify the major issues for 
analysis and eliminate the less important issues 
from further consideration. 

Issues Analyzed in Detail 

The following issues are analyzed in detail 
because of the potential for significant impact, 
degree of public controversy, or because they 
potentially impact resources specifically protect- 
ed by law. 

Impacts of Potential Land Use 
Authorizations (including Acquisition, 
Transfers, Easement Acquisition, Rights- 
of-Way, and Withdrawal) on Community 
Development and Sensitive Resources 

- Impacts of Land Transfers and 
Acquisition on Community Expansion 

and Use 

- Impacts from Corridor Designation and 
Rights-of-Way Avoidance and Exclusion 
Areas on Public Utilities 

Impacts on Locatable Mineral Exploration 
and Production in High Mineral Potential 
Areas 

Impacts on Water Resources 

- Impacts of Critical Soils and 
Watershed Areas 

- Impacts on Surface Water Quality 

- Recognition of Proposed Reservoir 
Sites in Relation to Key Resources and 
Other Proposed Decisions 

Impacts on Riparian Resources 

Impacts on Vegetation Resources 

- Impacts on Special Status Plant Species 

Impacts on Wildlife 

- General Impacts on Wildlife Species 

- Impacts on Special Status Animal Species 



Impacts on Livestock Grazing 

- Impacts on Ranching Operations from 
Land Transfers 

- Impacts to Grazing Operations from the 
Beaver Dam Slope ACEC Designation 
and Washington County HCP Reserve 

- Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health 
and Guidelines for Grazing 
Management 

Impacts on Recreation 

- Impacts on Extensive Recreation Areas 

- Impacts on Special Recreation 
Management Areas 

Impacts on Off-Highway Vehicles 
Impacts on Visual Resources 

Impacts on Wilderness Values 

Impacts on Special Emphasis Areas 

- Impacts on Wild and Scenic 
River Values 

- Impacts on Values in Areas of 
Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

Impacts on Socioeconomic Factors 

- Impacts on Washington County from 
Proposed Plan Decisions 

- Impacts on Other Surface Management 
Agencies 

Issues Considered But 
Not Analyzed in Detail 

The following issues or potential issues are not 
analyzed in detail in this Proposed Plan for the 
reasons discussed below. 

Impacts on Air Quality or Airshed Classification 

There is a potential for actions approved in con- 
formance with the allocations and decisions in 
this Proposed Plan to temporarily degrade air 
quality periodically in southwestern Utah and 
near Zion National Park. 

There are no major point sources of pollution 
expected on public lands in the resource area. 
A natural gas-fired electrical generation station 
is proposed near the community of Hildale. 
However, this facility would be on private land 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.3 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



and the potential air quality impacts are beyond 
the scope of this Proposed Plan. 

Anticipated soil disturbance and occasional pre- 
scribed or wildfires are potential sources of fugi- 
tive dust and other air pollutants. Additionally, 
livestock and wildlife would contribute to fugi- 
tive dust and to methane emissions. However, 
the disturbed areas, fires, and movement of ani- 
mals would be in scattered locations and at dif- 
ferent times. Reclamation of disturbed areas 
would be required, if possible. There would be 
temporary increases in fugitive dust and other 
emissions, but the increases would not be large 
enough to affect air quality in Washington 
County for more than short periods of time. 
Impacting actions authorized on public lands 
would require appropriate permits issued by the 
Utah Division of Air Quality and the Environ- 
mental Protection Agency (EPA). Therefore, 
impacts on air quality are not addressed in 
detail. There is no potential for changes in air- 
shed classification based on BLM's proposed 
decisions. 

Impacts on Access and Transportation 
rom Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 

Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 is a section of the 
Mining Act of 1 866 that grants the right-of-way 
for construction of highways over public lands 
not reserved for public uses. The extent and 
nature of the rights-of-way granted by R.S. 2477 
and the access routes that qualify as highways 
for the grant are in dispute. Some members of 
the public, including local governments in Utah, 
view R.S. 2477 rights-of-way as important com- 
ponents of state and local infrastructure, and as 
essential to the economic growth and social 
well-being of western communities. Others are 
concerned that recognition of extensive R.S. 
2477 rights-of-way would interfere with BLM's 
ability to protect and manage wilderness and 
other resources on the public lands. 

Washington County notified the Secretary of the 
Interior and BLM on January 4, 1994, that pur- 
suant to the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. section 
2409a(m) (1988), that the County intended to 
file to quiet title to alleged rights-of-way for 
about 800 segments of access routes in 



Washington County with the rights-of-way 
allegedly acquired under R.S. 2477. 

No formal process for either asserting or recog- 
nizing R.S. 2477 rights-of-way currently is pro- 
vided in law, regulations, or Department of the 
Interior policy. Courts must ultimately deter- 
mine the validity of R.S. 2477 assertions. 
Therefore, the potential impacts of recognizing 
or rejecting R.S. 2477 assertions are beyond the 
scope of this Proposed Plan and are not 
addressed. 

This Proposed Plan recognizes that the majority 
of roads within the resource area are used by 
the public and are essential to legitimate private 
and government business as well as for public 
enjoyment. These roads would remain as such. 
Transportation impacts to the public from deci- 
sions within this Proposed Plan would be mini- 
mal, if any. Areas that are closed to motorized 
travel in the Proposed Plan are in primitive areas 
that do not contain access roads, or if there are 
roads, they are very old, unmaintained trails 
and inaccessible by most vehicles. No roads 
would be closed on public land without proper 
due process through the state and county 
procedures. 

On a case-by-case basis, upon application from 
the county, BLM would grant Title V rights-of- 
way in perpetuity on existing, uncontested roads 
asserted by the county under R.S. 2477. Rights- 
of-way width and standards would be commen- 
surate with the class and purpose of each road. 
Site specific NEPA documentation would be 
required for each application and would include 
cultural, and threatened and endangered (T&E) 
clearances for the full right-of-way width. 

Impacts on Oil and Gas Production 

There has been a pronounced lack of oil and 
gas exploration and production history in the 
resource area. Given this situation, detailed 
analysis on the oil and gas categorizations is not 
warranted. Specific areas closed to leasing 
include lands within incorporated city limits, 
designated wilderness, and wilderness study 
areas. Categories shown in the Proposed Plan 
for leasing within Wilderness Study Areas reflect 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PIAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.4 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



what stipulations BLM would employ should the 
study areas be released from further considera- 
tion for wilderness designation. There are 
26,826 total acres closed by law to fluid mineral 
exploration and development in the resource 
area. Areas under a No Surface Occupancy 
stipulation include lands withdrawn, two recre- 
ation sites, Recreation and Public Purpose Act 
(R&PP) lands, critical desert tortoise habitat. 
Primitive Recreational Opportunity Spectrum 
(ROS) classes, some ACECs, and river segments 
proposed as suitable for addition to the national 
Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Public lands 
under a No Surface Occupancy stipulation com- 
prise 176,896 acres inWashington County. 

High potential for oil and gas only occur on 
6,801 acres near the town of Virgin. In this high- 
potential area, approximately 1,021 acres are 
within incorporated city limits and are therefore 
closed to leasing, roughly 5,391 acres fall with- 
in a special stipulation leasing category 
(Category 2), 56 acres are under a No Surface 
Occupancy leasing category (Category 3), and 
333 acres remain open to leasing (Category 4) 
under the standard stipulations. 

Moderate potential for fluid mineral production 
occurs on 71,105 acres of which approximately 
8,109 acres occur within city limits and are 
closed to leasing. Two ACECs, or parts thereof 
(Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce and Lower Virgin 
River), and a portion of the Washington County 
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Reserve, are 
within a moderate potential for fluid mineral 
occurrence and would require a No Surface 
Occupancy stipulation on 9,126 acres on the 
Proposed Plan to protect sensitive resources. In 
addition, 33,199 acres of moderate potential 
lands would require special leasing stipulations 
for the protection of important resources. Of 
the total acres of moderate potential, 20,671 
acres would be left open to leasing under stan- 
dard stipulations. 

The rest of the 551,099 acres remaining in the 
resource area have low potential for fluid miner- 
al development and would fall under various 
fluid mineral classifications dependant upon the 
occurrence of sensitive resources. There have 
been no producing oil and gas fields in ihe 
resource area since 1976 and only one explo- 



ration well per year is projected. No production 
is anticipated; therefore, impacts on oil and gas 
production are not analyzed in detail. 

Impacts on Geothermal Development 

There are no known geothermal interests or 
leases in the resource area; therefore, impacts 
on geothermal exploration and development are 
not addressed. No leasing or exploration is 
anticipated in the future. 

Impacts on Locatable Minerals 

The majority of public lands in Washington 
County would remain available to mining loca- 
tion under the General Mining Act of 1 872 and 
43 CFR regulations. Approximately 405,486 
acres would remain open subject to the undue 
and unnecessary degradation standard. Any 
mining operation disturbing greater than 5 acres 
on these lands would require a plan of opera- 
tion and site specific environmental analysis. In 
certain situations, such as closed OHV areas, 
ACECs, and river segments proposed as suitable 
for addition to the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System, a plan of operation would be 
required regardless of its size. Approximately 
168,496 acres fall under this requirement. 

A total of 56,149 acres are proposed for with- 
drawal and would not be open for mineral loca- 
tion. The withdrawal areas include the HCP 
Reserve, Dinosaur Trackway, Red Cliffs and 
Baker Dam Recreation Sites, Warner Ridge/Fort 
Pearce ACEC (including the 40-acre Fort Pearce 
Historic Site), and the Red Bluff ACEC. All of 
the withdrawal areas are in a low potential for 
locatable minerals except for the 6,168 acres 
comprising the Red Bluff ACEC which has a 
moderate potential for locatable minerals. 

Minerals such as iron, manganese, tungsten, 
gypsum, and sulfur are present in the resource 
area, but because of better sources elsewhere, 
the finds have not been mined and the potential 
for development is considered low. For these 
reasons, impacts on locatable mineral explo- 
ration and production in the resource area are 
not addressed in detail. However, the headwa- 
ters of the East Fork of the Beaver Dam Wash is 



PIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.5 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



a target area for exploration of gold, silver, and 
copper. The Beaver Dam Mountains west of St. 
George have been mined for gallium and ger- 
manium. The Silver Reef area has potential for 
silver production. Impacts on locatable mineral 
production in these areas are addressed. As 
applicable, all surface disturbing activities 
would be subject to the standards listed in 
Appendix 1. 

Impacts on Production and 

Use of Saleable Mineral Materials 

Salable mineral materials in the resource area 
include sand, gravel, cinders, and building 
stone. The demand for sand and gravel has 
been high. The BLM has issued over 450 per- 
mits in 1 year for extraction of these materials. 

Due to the high demand, there are numerous 
established pits and sources of mineral materials 
on the public lands in the resource area that 
would be available for use and production. 
Additionally, there are large quantities of these 
materials available for use on state and private 
land scattered through the county. For these 
reasons, the potential impacts on production 
and use of saleable mineral materials are not 
further analyzed in this Proposed Plan. 

Impacts on Coal Production 

There are about 9,000 acres (surface and sub- 
surface mineral estate) included in the Kolob 
Known Recoverable Coal Resource Area 
(KRCRA) in Townships 38 and 39 South, Range 
1 West, above Zion National Park. The aver- 
age thickness of the coal is estimated to be 5.5 
feet with approximately 90 million tons of coal 
resource. Even though the resource is located 
in the resource area, the potential for develop- 
ment and use of coal is low because access is 
restricted, there are hundreds of feet of overbur- 
den, and there are interspersed private and state 
lands in the KRCRA. There are no leases or 
records of economic interest in developing this 
resource. For these reasons, the Proposed Plan 
does not address the suitability of the KRCRA 
for leasing, and impacts on coal production are 
not analyzed. 

Impacts on Soils 

The soils of the resource area are shallow and 
include large areas of badlands, rock lands. 



dunes, and gypsum lands. Therefore, there is a 
potential for loss of soil structure and productiv- 
ity, with resultant impacts on vegetation and 
water quality from surface disturbance. Impacts 
on soils are closely linked to impacts on vegeta- 
tion and water quality. These impacts are 
addressed in the vegetation and water sections, 
but are not analyzed independently. 

Impacts of Reservoir Construction 

The State of Utah and the Washington County 
Water Conservancy District (WCWCD) have 
identified several potential sites for water stor- 
age reservoirs. At this time, one application 
from the WCWCD for construction of a reser- 
voir on the West Fork Beaver Dam Wash is on 
file at the BLM office. Development of this dam 
site would not be in conformance with this 
Proposed Plan due to the nature of conflicts 
with riparian systems, restoration of the Virgin 
spinedace populations, and protection of poten- 
tial habitat for the Southwestern willow flycatch- 
er. This Proposed Plan recognizes unique values 
for identified reservoir sites for the purpose of 
water storage. However, at this point in time, 
specific details regarding potential reservoir 
development are unavailable and cannot be rea- 
sonably projected until such time that a detailed 
proposal would be submitted. Development of 
up to two identified sites listed in Chapter 2 
would require a site-specific NEPA document 
based on a detailed and complete application 
and description of the project by the proponent. 
Associated impacts of potential future reservoir 
development on public lands would require 
commensurate analysis, appropriate Section 7 
consultation, and would be considered if found 
complementary to and not in conflict with other 
objectives and decisions of the Proposed Plan. 

The following issues related to reservoir devel- 
opment are beyond the scope of analysis for the 
Proposed Plan (40 CFR 1502.22): 

1 . Reallocation of water from agricultural to 
municipal use and resulting impacts on eco- 
nomic conditions, because water could be 
reallocated with or without reservoir con- 
struction. 

2. Impacts on threatened, endangered, and 
sensitive fish species because the mode of 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOUItCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.6 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



operation is not known and could benefit or 
harm fish. Additionally, Section 7 consulta- 
tion with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(FWS) would be required. 

3. Impacts on riparian systems and floodplain 

systems. 

4. Impacts on recreation use and enjoyment. 

5. Impacts related to site feasibility and engi- 
neering design. 

6. Economic and demographic impacts. 

This Proposed Plan provides only a qualitative 
analysis of potential impacts of reservoir devel- 
opment on key resources on the public lands in 
the resource area. Generic impacts of reservoir 
development as they pertain to the six identified 
sites are depicted within program- specific 
impact analysis. 

Impacts on Wildlife Forage Allocation 

The forage allocation for wildlife is addressed in 
the BLM Final Hot Desert Grazing Management 
EIS in Appendix VII, X, and XII. The impact 
analysis found in the Hot Desert FEIS is incorpo- 
rated by reference and no further analysis is 
included; however, management actions 
described throughout the Proposed Plan would 
ensure benefits to wildlife forage and integrity of 
wildlife habitat. 

Impacts of Livestock Grazing 

The impacts of livestock grazing on soils, water, 
vegetation, recreation, and other resources are 
of national and local concern and have been 
previously analyzed in the BLM Final Hot 
Desert Grazing Management EIS and the 
Kanab/Escalante Final EIS. BLM is managing the 
applicable allotments according to a modified 
version of the No Action Alternative described 
and analyzed in Chapter 8 of the Hot Desert 
Grazing Management EIS. 

On May 20, 1997, the Secretary of the Interior 
approved the Standards for Rangeland Health 
and Guidelines for Crazing Management on 
public land in Utah. These standards and 
guidelines require significant compliance with 



environmental health. All grazing activities on 
public lands require close monitoring to deter- 
mine if the environmental standards are being 
met. Wherever monitoring shows that a particu- 
lar standard is not being met, BLM would pre- 
scribe actions to ensure progress in meeting that 
standard. Field assessments and continued 
monitoring would determine the extent of future 
grazing changes and additional NEPA compli- 
ance necessary for implementation of the 
actions. 

Impacts on Production and 
Harvest of Forest Products 

The decisions and allocations proposed in this 
Proposed Plan would affect the availability and 
use of pinyon-juniper woodland products in the 
resource area. There is no commercial timber 
activity on public lands in Washington County. 
A sustainable level of forest products harvest has 
been established as 4,100 cords of dead fuel- 
wood, 1,200 cords of green fuelwood, 1,600 
posts, and 500 Christmas trees per year. 
Because there would be sufficient area to pro- 
vide the sustainable level of production under 
the Proposed Plan, impacts on production of 
forest products are not further analyzed in this 
Proposed Plan. Approximately 51,530 acres of 
pinyon-juniper woodland would be closed to 
harvest of this resource in order to protect sensi- 
tive resources. Map 2.10 depicts the pinyon- 
juniper areas that would be open for fuelwood 
harvest. Overall, 75 percent of the 
pinyon/juniper forested public land in the 
resource area would be available for fuelwood 
cutting either year-round or on a seasonal basis. 
Difficulty in collecting wood and posts in the 
northwestern portion of the resource area would 
result from the OHV limitation to designated 
roads and trails on 13,543 acres. 

Impacts on Resources and Economics 
from Wilderness Designation 

Lands that qualified for WSA status according to 
criteria contained in the Wilderness Act of 1 964 
and the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act (FLPMA) of 1976 were identified by BLM in 
a statewide wilderness inventory that was initiat- 
ed in 1978 and completed in 1985 with the res- 
olution of appeals to BLM's inventory decisions. 
The impacts of wilderness designation for WSAs 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL E N V I R O N M E N T A I. IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.7 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



on BLM lands in Utah were addressed in the 
BLM Utah Statewide Wilderness FEIS published 
in 1990. BLM's recommendations to the 
Secretary of the Interior, the President, and 
Congress on the suitability of WSAs for wilder- 
ness designation were published in the BLM 
Utah Statewide Wilderness Study Report pub- 
lished in October 1991. 

Of the 1 1 study areas in the resource area that 
include 93,901 acres, 66,998 acres were rec- 
ommended as suitable for designation as wilder- 
ness. However, until Congress either designates 
WSAs as wilderness or releases them for uses 
other than wilderness, BLM must manage them 
according to the Interim Management Policy 
(IMP) and Guidelines for Lands Under 
Wilderness Review that imposes special man- 
agement and restricting activities to those that 
do not impair wilderness values. Management 
under the IMP will continue until Congress 
makes a wilderness decision, regardless of this 
Proposed Plan. A 1987 law imposes fluid min- 
eral leasing closures in WSAs. Congressional 
designation of WSAs in the resource areas as 
wilderness would amend this Proposed Plan. 

The impacts of wilderness designation for the 
WSAs in the resource area are analyzed in 
Volumes I, IIA, and MB of the Utah Statewide 
Wilderness FEIS. Potential adverse impacts 
include inconvenience for livestock permittees 
because of restrictions on access and future 
rangeland improvements, conflicts with commu- 
nity expansion for the city of Ivins, and conflicts 
with municipal water development. None of 
the impacts were projected to significantly affect 
local economic conditions. For purposes of this 
Proposed Plan, the impacts of wilderness desig- 
nation are incorporated by reference to the Utah 
Statewide Wilderness FEIS and are not further 
addressed. 

Impacts of Cultural and Paleontological 
Resource Management 

Public lands contain abundant archeological 
and historical resources and are considered 
extremely valuable to the scientific community, 
Indian tribes, and interested individuals. These 
resources are primarily associated with riverine 
systems. There are four ACECs within the 
resource area that have been found to contain 



significant cultural resources. The ACEC desig- 
nation has been brought forth wholly, or in part, 
due to cultural resource relevance and impor- 
tance criteria. Specific prescriptions for each 
ACEC, listed under the Special Emphasis Areas 
section in the Proposed Plan, portray actions 
that would protect the resources for future study 
and interest. In other areas of known cultural 
densities or paleontological sites such as the 
Red Cliffs Interpretive Site and the Dinosaur 
Trackway, other protective measures are 
described throughout resource sections within 
the Proposed Plan. In all areas of the resource 
area, cultural clearances and other mitigation 
required by law would protect and inventory 
these resources, in addition, BLM would ensure 
compliance with all requirements for Native 
American consultation whenever these 
resources may be affected. In general, the prin- 
ciples of conservation management would be 
used in selected areas to maintain present con- 
ditions for future study. Public education, sur- 
veillance, and enforcement would be designed 
to increase public awareness and reduce van- 
dalism. Further, BLM would promote legitimate 
research through cooperation with credible 
institutions. Providing for maintenance, stabi- 
lization, and interpretation of selected cultural 
sites would increase public enjoyment and 
awareness of the value of these sites. 
Coordinated efforts with communities, organiza- 
tions, Indian Tribes, and site stewardship pro- 
grams would protect these sites and decrease 
vandalism. Under this Proposed Plan, conces- 
sionaire management of these resources would 
not be allowed. Because of the above manage- 
ment practices, further detailed analysis is not 
required. 

Impacts on Hazardous Waste Generation 
and Management 

BLM policy does not authorize public lands to 
be used for hazardous materials waste disposal 
in order to eliminate potential long-term public 
liability. Transportation of hazardous materials 
through the resource area on six major trans- 
portation routes is permitted under numerous 
federal and state laws and regulations. BLM 
does not have the authority to restrict the trans- 
portation of hazardous materials on or within 
public transportation corridors or routes, as the 
authority rests with the Department of 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.8 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



Transportation and the Environmental Protection 
Agency. Certain types of operations on public 
lands, such as mining, may utilize, transport, or 
generate hazardous materials. Prior to this 
occurring, specific NEPA documentation is 
required to assess impacts and determine the 
need for state or federal permits that regulate 
such materials. Current activities involving the 
use of hazardous materials on public lands 
include a cyanide heap leach mine that is in 
reclamation under an existing permit and a 
small bromide recovery process. No other haz- 
ardous waste site needs have been identified on 
public lands within the resource area. Future 
projects would be required to undergo site-spe- 
cific analysis and assessment for other permit- 
ting needs; therefore, detailed analysis of haz- 
ardous materials is not warranted. 

Impacts on Fire Management 

A Fire Management Plan will be completed in a 
future activity level plan which would incorpo- 
rate the goals and objectives and/or manage- 
ment prescriptions required in this Proposed 
Plan. Among other things, BLM would seek to: 
1) reintroduce fire back into the ecosystems to 
enhance land health, 2) identify suppression, 
limited suppression, or "let burn" zones to 
maintain public safety, structures, and watershed 
values, 3) limit fire in order to protect the most 
critical resources and to avoid unacceptable 
impacts, 4) use fire to reduce excessive fuel 
loads to prevent catastrophic fire occurrence, 
and 5) consider costs associated with fire sup- 
pression. Until such time that the activity level 
plan is completed, BLM would continue to fol- 
low the existing Cedar City District Fire 
Management Plan that provides for continued 
protection of resources in accordance with 
existing programs and policies. Therefore, 
detailed analysis would not be completed at this 
time. 

Impacts of Animal Damage 
and Pest Control Programs 

The impacts of BLM's authorization of predator 
and other pest control on public lands are a 
national and local issue. BLM presently pre- 
pares Environmental Assessments (EAs) in 
response to proposals for control. These EAs are 
generally tiered to an EIS prepared by the agen- 



cies authorized to carry out the control actions. 
These programs are necessary and would be 
consistent with this Proposed Plan because they 
are required by law and protect other high value 
resources. However, the level and nature of the 
control programs vary to meet the potential 
needs and purposes of the programs. 
Conformance of these activities with the 
Proposed Plan would be determined by BLM 
through consideration of their effect on other 
resource values and management objectives 
established in this Proposed Plan. Accordingly, 
predator control, grasshopper control, and relat- 
ed activities would continue to be analyzed in 
future NEPA documents, but are not addressed 
or analyzed further in this Proposed Plan. 



Proposed Plan 
Impact Analysis 



Reasonable Foreseeable Actions 

It is anticipated that up to 1 8,000 acres of land 
could be transferred out of public ownership, 
and up to 1 8,000 acres of private and state 
lands could be acquired through the land 
exchange and the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund purchase process. 

Of the 12 identified utility corridors in the 
Proposed Plan, it is projected that up to two 
major rights-of-way could be constructed in 
each corridor. This would involve 24 rights-of- 
way throughout the life of the plan at an esti- 
mated surface disturbance of up to 1 .5 acres 
per mile. A total of 60,963 acres within the 
resource area are within proposed utility 
corridors. 

There could be up to 24 additional rights-of-way 
per year issued throughout the resource area for 
small distribution and telephone lines, commu- 
nication facilities, and access routes. It is esti- 
mated that approximately 1 .5 acres per mile 
would be disturbed and that there could be up 
to 36 acres per year disturbed from such right- 
of-way grants. Over the life of the plan, close to 
720 acres could be disturbed from rights-of-way 
construction and operation outside of designat- 
ed corridors. 

Projected activities related to locatable mineral 
exploration and development would disturb up 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.9 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



to 800 acres of the resource area over the next 
20 years. Exploratory activities are projected to 
disturb a total of 200 acres (approximately 10 
acres/year). This disturbance would most likely 
occur on high and moderate mineral potential 
areas in and around the Beaver Dam Mountains, 
East and West Forks of the Beaver Dam Wash, 
and the Silver Reef area. Mining development 
is projected to disturb up to 600 acres (approxi- 
mately 30 acres per year) in the same areas 
where exploration is likely. The existing and 
potential new mine locations would employ a 
total of up to 100 employees over the planning 
horizon. 

Of the six reservoir sites identified, it is antici- 
pated that two sites would be constructed. It is 
estimated that there could be up to 750 acres 
disturbed from construction of the two sites. 

In accordance with the desert tortoise recovery 
plan and the Washington County HCP Reserve, 
BLM would allow for construction of 23 miles 
of various types of fence on public lands (dis- 
turbing 1 1 .5 acres) to protect desert tortoise in 
habitat north of St. George and near Hurricane. 

Of the 27,000 acres of vegetative treatment 
areas on the Resource area, approximately 400 
acres per year would be maintained by various 
methods of manipulation. 
It is projected that up to 1 10 miles or 80 acres 
of new trails and tracks would occur from off- 
highway vehicles and mountain bikes in and 
around urban areas and in riparian areas 
throughout the planning horizon. 

Impacts on Potential 
Land Use Authorizations 

Land Acquisition 

It is estimated that BLM would acquire up to 
18,000 acres of private and/or state lands over 
the life of the plan, primarily through land 
exchanges. Acquisition of lands within the 
Washington County HCP Reserve, with limited 
opportunity for development because of require- 
ments for protection of desert tortoise habitat, is 
the primary focus of the resource area's 
exchange program. Acquisition would provide 
private landowners and the State the opportuni- 



ty to develop exchanged lands outside of the 
Reserve while increasing the amount of publicly 
owned desert tortoise habitat in accordance 
with the HCP. Land acquisition within the HCP 
Reserve would also occur through the direct 
purchase of land through the federal Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. In addition, lands 
could also be donated to the BLM for preserva- 
tion of the desert tortoise. It is anticipated that 
acquired public land acreage would be approxi- 
mately the same as that transferred out of feder- 
al ownership in the future through the above- 
mentioned processes. 

Any public land acquisitions outside of the HCP 
would be sought specifically to provide for pub- 
lic access to key use areas, consolidate public 
land ownership patterns, provide for essential 
public recreation opportunities, or protect 
important resources such as floodplains, riparian 
areas, wildlife habitat, cultural sites, or wilder- 
ness values. However, the majority of future 
land ownership changes would facilitate the 
Washington County HCP and assist statewide 
exchange agreements with Utah State 
institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) 
to remove trust inholdings from federally 
reserved areas. 

Land Transfer 

The Proposed Plan would also allow for land 
transfers of up to 1 8,000 acres to accommodate 
the public purpose and development plans of 
local communities and to help meet desert tor- 
toise habitat acquisition objectives. Private and 
state lands within the Washington County HCP 
Reserve would be exchanged with willing land 
owners for public lands outside the HCP area, 
thereby increasing private and State lands avail- 
able for development. The majority of public 
lands that have been identified for disposal are 
close to expanding communities or transporta- 
tion corridors. Lands that have been identified 
for transfer must undergo subsequent analysis to 
ensure conformity with the land transfer criteria 
set forth in the Proposed Plan. Lands outside of 
Washington County, but within the state of 
Utah, are also being sought for exchange in 
order to facilitate the transfer of private and state 
lands within the HCP Reserve. Public lands 
transferred into private ownership outside of 
Washington County could result in lower feder- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.10 



TER 3 " ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



al PILT payments in the ensuing county of trans- 
fer; however, it would also increase the private 
land base and respective property taxes to that 
county. It is impossible to determine where 
these land exchanges could take place within 
the state in the future. 

Most public lands within view of Stale Scenic 
Highway 9 would be retained in public owner- 
ship to protect the scenic values of the "Zion 
Corridor" between LaVerkin and Springdale. 
Exceptions could be allowed if needed to serve 
essential municipal interests if such would not 
substantially detract from the scenic quality of 
the corridor. Three small tracts of land (240 
acres total) within or near the town of Virgin 
that have been identified for disposal are not 
visible from Highway 9. 

Transfer of land from public ownership could 
adversely affect adjacent landowners who 
bought land specifically for its proximity and/or 
abutment to undeveloped public lands. Such 
transfers could result in development adjacent 
to these properties. Any such development 
would be subject to county or municipal zoning 
regulations. 

Transfer of floodplain lands out of public owner- 
ship would generally not be approved. If trans- 
ferred, development of floodplains for commu- 
nity uses would be difficult because deed 
restrictions on future uses would be imposed to 
protect the floodplains and to avoid improper 
placement of structures as required by Executive 
Order and Federal Regulations. 

Under BLM's state riparian policy, riparian habi- 
tat within public lands in the resource area 
would not be transferred unless equal to or bet- 
ter habitat could be acquired. Limitations also 
exist under Executive Order and Federal 
Regulations to protect this sensitive habitat type. 

The requirement to provide 2 years notice to 
livestock grazing permittees prior to land trans- 
fer could delay development of lands within 
grazing allotments for that amount of time or 
until a negotiated agreement is reached between 
the permittee and the land exchange applicant. 

Easement Acquisition 

Of the 13 easements identified in the Proposed 
Plan, it is anticipated that only the most critical 



easements listed would be pursued. The 
impacts of obtaining these easements would 
result in permanent reliable access for the pub- 
lic for recreation purposes, wildlife and range 
management, historic values, mineral develop- 
ment, and would enhance accessibility for 
important resource uses and protection. 

Rights-of-Way 

Rights-of-way avoidance areas encompass 
308,889 acres throughout the resource area. In 
avoidance areas, future rights-of-way would be 
granted only when no feasible alternative route 
or designated rights-of-way are available. 
Designating these areas as avoidance areas 
helps to protect resources (such as sensitive 
species habitat, known cultural resource areas, 
hazardous soil areas, watershed protection 
areas, riparian areas, river segments recom- 
mended as suitable for inclusion into the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, sensi- 
tive visual/scenic areas, and areas containing 
primitive recreation values) from surface disturb- 
ing activities. Avoidance areas would require 
rights-of-way applicants to explore different 
alternatives to a proposal and possibly move 
routes to circumvent sensitive areas. This would 
not preclude construction of utilities, but could 
result in increased cost and inconvenience for 
utility companies and could delay construction 
because BLM's approval process would require 
additional time. Nevertheless, utility companies 
would be able to plan routes that would bypass 
conflict with rights-of-way avoidance areas; 
however, economic impacts to the applicant 
could result. It is important to note that all 
decisions made in the area above Zion National 
Park are subject to the Zion Water Rights 
Settlement Agreement. However, no actions in 
this Agreement are known to impact public 
lands above the Park at this time. 

The only right-of-way exclusion area in the 
resource area is within the Beaver Dam 
Mountains Wilderness Area, overlaying 2,690 
acres of public land. Future rights-of-way 
would be granted in this exclusion area only 
when mandated by law. 

BLM would designate two existing interstate 
utility corridors that would follow the route of 
[he IPP powerline and the Navajo-McCullough 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.11 



CHAPTER 3 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



powerline for future use by utility companies. 
The Navajo-McCullough corridor would stay to 
the north of the existing utility line to protect the 
scenic sensitivity of the Beaver Dam Mountains 
Wilderness Area. An additional 10 utility corri- 
dors would be designated for meeting local util- 
ity distribution needs within Washington 
County, as well as to provide routes for inter- 
state and multistate proposals. Designation of 
the corridors would reduce costs incurred by 
the utility industry to analyze various route 
alternatives because available routes would be 
identified and BLM processing of proposals 
would be accelerated. 

A total of 15,873 acres of public land exists 
within the 25 miles of the mile-wide interstate 
corridor where rights-of-way could be granted 



for the IPP corridor. In addition, the Navajo- 
McCullough corridor contains 7,524 acres of 
public land within a 12-mile area where addi- 
tional rights-of-way could be granted. 
Designation of these two interstate corridors 
would fulfill FLPMA Section 503 requirements 
and guidelines and meet the BLM objective of 
managing scenic resources by collectively rout- 
ing interstate utilities with accompanying struc- 
tures and surface disturbance into designated 
corridors. 

It is projected that 24 utility projects could be 
constructed within the corridors to meet 
inter/intrastate and local community utility 
requirements. The corridors and the possible 
conflicts with right-of-way construction, are list- 
ed in Table 3.2. 



TABLE 3-2 • Corridors and Identified Conflicts 



CORRIDOR 



ACRES 



CONFLICTS 



Navajo-McCullough Power Project 



1,204 acres 
901 acres 
271 acres 



10 acres 

33 acres 

various 

4,203 acres 
3,322 acres 



desert tortoise critical liabitat 

Beaver Dam Slope ACEC 

Lower Virgin River ACEC {cultural 

resources, Virgin River Spinedace, 

southwest willow flycatcher habitat) 

soils with a high erosion hazard 

riparian habitat 

visual impacts from Beaver Dam 

Mountains Wilderness Area (not within) 

high potential for locatable minerals 

moderate potential for locatable minerals 



Intermountain Power Project (IPP) 



4,750 acres desert tortoise critical habitat 

2,432 acres Beaver Dam Slope ACEC 

388 acres soils with a high erosion hazard 

various intermittent streams; Cole Spring, 

Jackson Spring, Manganese Springs, 

Grapevine Spring Wash, Jackson Wash, 

and Tobin Wash 

riparian habitat 

high potential for mineral materials 

high potential for locatable minerals 



71 


acres 


123 


acres 


13,343 


acres 


204 


acres 


759 


acres 


78 


acres 


225 


acres 


80 


acres 



Carkane and UP&L lino from 
Hildale to Hurricane 



Little Creek Mountain ACEC 

soils with a high erosion hazard 
riparian habitat 
Frog Hollow watershed 
crucial mule deer winter range 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.12 



CHAPTER 3 « ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



TABLE 3-2 (continued) • Corridors and Identified Conflicts 



CORRIDOR 



ACRES 



CONFLICTS 



UP&L substation at Dammeron Valley 
to Sand Cove Reservoir power plant 
to Veyo and Central 



14 acres riparian habitat 

41 9 acres Navajo Aquifer high recharge zone 

354 acres municipal watershed 

Various visual impacts from Red Mountain 

ACEC and primitive values (not within) 
30 acres high potential for mineral materials 



UP&L substation at Harrisburg 
Junction to Hurricane following 
the route of SR-9 



None 



None 



La Verkin to Anderson Junction 
following the route of SR 1 7 



316 acres soils with a high erosion hazard 

27 acres riparian habitat 

958 acres Navajo Aquifer high recharge zone 

678 acres crucial mule deer winter range 

752 acres moderate potential for fluid minerals 



From Gunlock Reservoir south 
along highway to Shivwits Reservation 
and route of Old Highway 91 across 
Beaver Dam Slope from Shivwits 
Reservation to Arizona border 
(would be the width of the currently 
fenced rights-of-way, 
approximately 1/8 mile) 



288 acres desert tortoise critical habitat 

329 acres Beaver Dam Slope ACEC 

1 96 acres Santa Clara River/Gunlock ACEC 

40 acres riparian habitat 

755 acres high potential for locatable minerals. 



SR-1 8 highway right-of-way 
from Si. George to Veyo 



20 acres desert tortoise critical habitat 

49 acres high value Navajo Aquifer recharge area 



Motoqua east along county road to 
the Shivwits Indian Reservation 



967 acres soils with a high erosion hazard 

72 acres riparian habitat 

426 acres high potential for mineral materials 

5,909 acres high potential for locatable minerals 

46 acres moderate potential for locatable minerals 



Section of 1-15 from below 

Harrisburg Junction to Ash Creek Reservoir 



2,973 acres soils with a high erosion hazard 

133 acres riparian habitat 

4,556 acres Navajo Aquifer high recharge zone 

4,580 acres crucial deer winter range 

7,123 acres moderate potential for fluid minerals 

300 acres high mineral materials potential 

496 acres high potential for locatable minerals 



Springdale to LaVerkin following 
the route of the existing UP&L line 



1,968 acres soils with a high erosion hazard 

10 acres riparian habitat 

220 acres crucial mule deer winter range 

560 acres high potential for mineral materials 

323 acres high potential for fluid minerals 



Hurricane south to the Arizona 

border and east to Hildale along the border 



572 acres soils with a high erosion hazard 

65 acres Frog Hollow critical watershed 

3,51 9 acres moderate potential for fluid minerals 

82 acres high potential for mineral materials 



DIXIE RESOURCi; AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATgMENT 



3.13 



CHAPTER 3 " ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



Even though corridors would be designated, use 
of the corridors would be complicated by 
potential conflicts with other resources and val- 
ues within the corridor. These conflicts could 
result in construction delays and additional 
costs for mitigation of potential impacts on such 
values asT&E species habitats, riparian vegeta- 
tion, mineral production potential, soils with 
high soil erosion hazard, and critical water- 
sheds, among others. 

Overall, it is projected that identification of cor- 
ridors and the spacing of rights-of-way exclusion 
and avoidance areas would allow for construc- 
tion of powerlines, pipelines, and other utilities 
through the resource area to local communities 
and market areas in Nevada and California. 

One potential "Southern Corridor Transportation 
Route" from SR-59 near Hildale to 1-15 south of 
St. George would also be considered within the 
scope of this Proposed Plan. A spur road from 
the base of the Hurricane Cliffs to the town of 
Hurricane is proposed as a connection to this 
route. This transportation route could accom- 
modate large vehicle/truck traffic and could 
eliminate public safety hazards for the city of 
Hurricane and other affected communities. 
Construction of the Southern Corridor 
Transportation Route would require extensive 
engineering and construction to descend the 
Hurricane Cliffs. It is possible that considerable 
mitigation would be required in order to protect 
cultural resources, riparian resources, and sensi- 
tive plant and animal species. Other conflicts 
could occur due to overlapping areas of high 
mineral materials potential, high erosion hazard 
soils, critical watersheds, fluid mineral potential 
areas, and grazing issues. 

The Proposed Plan would allow construction of 
a new communication site at Scrub Peak. 
Cellular phone microwave structures or other 
equipment could be installed to support expan- 
sion of the communication needs in Washington 
County. It is projected that this one additional 
site, along with the four existing communication 
sites, would meet the need for additional com- 
munication facilities. In order to minimize sur- 
face and visual impacts, site sharing of existing 
facilities would be encouraged at all communi- 
cation sites to lessen the need for additional 
sites and disturbance. The communication site 



at Black Ridge would continue to remain in its 
primitive condition, and access roads and new 
powerlines would not be allowed in order to 
avoid scarring and to maintain natural values on 
the ridge. Communication site users and appli- 
cants would bear an additional expense to 
access the upper site on foot or by helicopter 
and would have to work together to share the 
existing power line at the site. 

Under the Proposed Plan, six potential reservoir 
sites on public lands identified by the State of 
Utah and the WCWCD would be recognized by 
BLM. Prior to making any future decisions that 
would preempt these sites from potential reser- 
voir development, BLM would ensure that the 
sites undergo a level of review for their unique 
values associated with the potential for water 
storage. Development of any of the sites for 
reservoir purposes would require complete envi- 
ronmental and engineering analysis and public 
participation prior to consideration for approval. 

Withdrawal 

The seven areas proposed for withdrawal from 
mining location and disposition under the land 
laws would protect significant cultural, historic, 
recreation, and sensitive species habitat from 
surface disturbing activities. Lands within the 
Red Cliffs Recreation Area are considered high 
potential lands for locatable mineral develop- 
ment, and lands within the Red Bluff ACEC are 
assessed as having moderate potential for locat- 
able mineral development. Withdrawal of 
these lands would preclude locatable mineral 
development of these lands; however, based on 
the past, current, and projected mining activities 
in the resource area, it is not anticipated that 
withdrawal of these small areas would have any 
measurable impact on the mining industry. All 
other lands identified for withdrawal are inven- 
toried as lands containing low potential for 
locatable mineral development, and a reason- 
ably foreseeable scenario does not anticipate 
any locatable mineral development in these 
areas. 

Impacts on Locatable Mineral 

Exploration and Prodution 

Under this Proposed Plan, 56,149 acres of pub- 
lic lands would be proposed for withdrawal 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND fINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.14 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



from the general mining laws. Areas that are 
currently withdrawn include 4,450 acres. Areas 
identified for withdrawal within the high to 
moderate potential for mineral development 
comprise 6,183 acres within the resource area. 
This acreage is minimal relative to the public 
land acres in Washington County and would 
have little effect on the economic potential for 
mineral exploration and development as a 
whole. 

By regulation, claimants would be required to 
file a plan of operation for all mining proposals 
in areas that are closed to off-highway vehicle 
use, river segments proposed as suitable for 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System desig- 
nation, or within ACECs. These areas comprise 
1 68,496 acres within the resource area. 
Restrictions and mitigation requirements for 
exploration and mining could potentially 
increase operational costs which would 
decrease mineral production from economically 
marginal operations. 

In all other areas (except for those withdrawn), a 
plan of operation is only required for operations 
disturbing 5 acres or more. An environmental 
analysis on the plan of operation is required and 
could lead to stipulations to mitigate potential 
environmental impacts of mineral exploration 
and development on public lands throughout 
the resource area. 

Stipulations would be placed on mining activi- 
ties to protect desert tortoise habitat on the 
Beaver Dam Slope (33,063 acres). Mining or 
exploration beyond casual use in critical habitat 
would be subject to consultation with the FWS 
and conditions to protect the tortoise and its 
habitat. This area has moderate to high poten- 
tial for mineral occurrence and development. 
The stipulations would increase costs and fur- 
ther impede economically marginal operations. 

Restrictions and special conditions on access 
and development would be imposed by law or 
regulation on mining activities on 41,169 acres 
(7 percent of the resource area) where there is 
non-federal surface ownership and federal min- 
erals. These conditions and restrictions also 
would discourage mining and exploration for 
marginally profitable deposits. These areas of 
restriction are scattered throughout the resource 



area; however, most are in areas with low 
potential for mineral occurrence. 

Approximately 2,470 acres of public lands iden- 
tified for transfer are located in areas with high 
(157 acres) or moderate (2,313 acres) potential 
for locatable mineral development. Although 
transfer would not eliminate the potential for 
mining, private surface use could make mine 
development impractical unless purchased by 
the mineral developer. 

Designation of utility and transportation corri- 
dors would have little effect on the potential for 
production of locatable minerals until rights-of- 
way are granted. Five proposed utility corridors 
would transect high and moderate potential 
areas for locatable mineral exploration and 
development in the west portion of the resource 
area and at Silver Reef. Approximately 27,820 
acres within the IPP, Navajo-McCullough, 
Motoqua to Shivwits, Shivwits to Arizona 
Border, and 1-15 corridors could be utilized for 
utility rights-of-way. The issuance of rights-of- 
way would encumber these lands and decrease 
the economic feasibility for mining. The corri- 
dors overlay around 1 1 percent of the moderate 
and high potential areas in the resource area. 

Under the Proposed Plan, the West Fork of the 
Beaver Dami Wash would be managed as an 
antidegradation segment to preserve the water 
quality of this stream. Extensive mitigation 
requirements would be placed on proposed 
heap leach mining operations within this area to 
prevent potential degradation of the stream 
water quality. In effect, maintaining this seg- 
ment as an antidegradation segment could 
restrict the type of locatable mineral activity 
allowed in this locality. 

The Silver Reef area, north of St. George, has a 
high potential for mineral occurrence. Such 
occurrences arc generally small, localized ore 
bodies, and the viability of these operations 
depend on market economics. The area is 
becoming highly urbanized and includes many 
instances of other sensitive resources such as 
cultural, recreational, and scenic values. Based 
on the nature of this area, mitigation for mining 
operations could be extensive and would con- 
tinue to create conflicts with private land own- 
ers and other users. In addition, this is the only 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.15 



CHAP T E R 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



section in the resource area with a high locat- 
able mineral potential that also falls within a 
Class II visual resource management objective 
area. This area encompasses approximately 789 
acres. Mitigation to protect scenic values and 
resolve concerns of adjacent landowners could 
decrease the economic feasibility of mineral 
production. 

None of the planned actions or anticipated 
activities within the Proposed Plan would affect 
existing mining operations in the resource area 
or the projected expansion of the existing 
mines. 

Impacts on Water Resources 

Soils and Watershed 

The watershed soils of the resource area are 
shallow and include large areas of badlands, 
rock lands, dunes, and gypsiferous soils. 
Management is further complicated by the high- 
ly fragmented nature of land ownership patterns. 
Given the nature of use and development in the 
county, there is a potential for loss of soils struc- 
ture and productivity, with resultant impacts on 
vegetation and water quality from surface distur- 
bance. Impacts on soils are closely linked to 
impacts on vegetation and water quality. 

Through partnership efforts, BLM would: 1) pro- 
tect community watersheds and sources of culi- 
nary water, 2) reduce erosion, stream sedimen- 
tation, and salinization, 3) improve water quali- 
ty in streams and rivers, 4) promote water con- 
servation, 5) assure compliance with applicable 
pollution controls, 6) provide for human enjoy- 
ment while supporting environmental resources, 
and 7) meet essential community needs by 
working with local governments to recognize 
environmentally suitable sites for water storage 
and associated facilities. These efforts would be 
implemented through land use restrictions on 
critical areas having fragile soils, high erosion 
rates, known sedimentation, and/or salinity 
problems. Table 3-3 specifically outlines these 
areas of emphasis and their prescriptions. 

Within the 100-year floodplain along rivers and 
major streams, BLM would retain important 
watershed functioning lands that would comply 
with EG 1 1 990 and EG 1 1 988, which require 



avoidance of development within the flood- 
plains as well as protection of the associated 
wetland resources. Floodplain management 
would consist of preservation and restoration of 
natural and beneficial values along floodplains 
and discourage structural development. Actions 
would not be approved within floodplains 
unless unacceptable impacts could be eliminat- 
ed. BLM would seek to acquire lands in the 
resource area and would promote conservation 
agreements and cooperative management strate- 
gies where possible to protect floodplain 
resources and functions. Overall, management 
within Washington County would generally 
result in the maintenance, preservation, and 
enhancement of floodplains and the natural 
beneficial values served by floodplains. 
Ultimately, this could result in reduction of 
impacts from potential flooding, better water 
quality, reduction of sedimentation and saliniza- 
tion of water, enhanced riparian areas, and 
could increase groundwater infiltrations. Best 
management practices would be used to further 
the goals and objectives of floodplain manage- 
ment. This Proposed Plan does not identify any 
specific actions that would adversely impact the 
floodplains within the resource area. In fact, 
many actions have been designed so as to 
improve, enhance, and maintain floodplain 
values. 

Water Resources 

Population growth in Washington County con- 
tinues to result in demands on surface and 
groundwater. These demands are met through 
development of springs, wells, reservoirs, water 
transportation systems for culinary purposes, as 
well as for recreational, agricultural, and 
wildlife uses. Protection of culinary water 
sources is a priority on public lands in accor- 
dance with state law. BLM would manage these 
areas and the Navajo Aquifer high recharge area 
as municipal watersheds by ensuring manage- 
ment actions do not jeopardize water quality, 
closing areas to mineral materials sales, requir- 
ing mitigation for fluid mineral development, 
not allowing hazardous materials or landfill sites 
in these areas, and limiting GHV use except for 
a high recharge area west of Veyo. Impacts 
from leaving the Veyo area open for OHV use 
are not anticipated due to the isolation of the 
area, the vegetation constraints, and the natural 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.16 



c 


HAP 


T E R 3 • 


E 


NVIRONMEN 


T A L 


C 


O 


N 


S E U 


E 


N 


C 


E 


S 




TABLE 3-3 • 


Land Use Restrict 


ons on Critical SoilAVatershed Areas 






















AREA OF EMPHASIS 




RESOURCE PROTECTION 










ACTIONS 













ACECs - Red Bluff, Upper 
Beaver Dam Wash, Warner 
Ridge/Fort Pearce 



Protect critical watersheds, 
saline soils, and/or 
water quality 



Fluid Minerals: NSO or special 

stipulations 
NSO or special stipulations 
Some mineral withdrawals 
ROW avoidance areas 
Closures to fuelwood harvest, 

vegetation, and mineral 

materials sales 



City Creek Watershed 



Protected through Red Cliffs 
Desert Preserve HCP 



Retire grazing permits 
Fluid Minerals: NSO OHV: 

limited or closed Mineral 

withdrawal 
Closures to fuelwood harvest, 

vegetation, and mineral 

materials sales 



Critically Eroding Soils 
in the West Santa Clara 



Protect Critically 
Eroding Soils 



Nonstructural projects such as: 

vegetation manipulation, enhancing 
and maintaining riparian systems, 
adjusting grazing management and 
human use patterns. 



Curly Hollow and 
Frog Hollow Watersheds, 
Riparian Areas, and 
specified areas of Critically 
Eroding Soils 



Protection of the Watershed 



OHV restrictions in specified areas 

ROW avoidance area 

Fluid minerals: riparian areas arc 
under NSO stipulation, other areas 
require special stipulations 

Required reclamations to stabilize 
soils, encourage reestablishment of 
vegetation, and cryptogamic soils. 



geological restrictions that are not conducive to 
off-road travel. 

BLM would meet the goals of the Colorado 
River Basin Salinity Control Act by implement- 
ing the actions in this Proposed Plan and requir- 
ing the use of best management practices, 
implementing ihe Standards for Rangeland 
Health, and ensuring the use of Standards 
Applied to Surface Disturbing Activities, as 
described in Appendix 1, to prevent and reduce 
the movement of salts into the Colorado River 
Basin. 

Rights-of-way constructed within any corridor 
could potentially impact live streams. If a pro- 
posed right-of-way involves a pipeline, con- 
struction could involve disturbance and move- 



ments of sediments resulting in a short-term 
increase in total dissolved solids (TDS) that 
would likely exceed state water quality stan- 
dards for short periods (36 hours). Under Utah 
water quality regulations, TDS standards could 
be adjusted upward if the beneficial uses of the 
steam segment receiving the materials would 
not be adversely affected. Best management 
practices and mitigation of water quality 
impacts would ensure that domestic water qual- 
ity would not be measurably reduced. 

Permanent water bodies (reservoirs or perennial 
streams) would be protected by prohibiting 
surface disturbance within 1 00 yards of the 
high water line through the application of 43 
CFR 3101.1-2 (200-meter rule) for fluid mineral 
leasing. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.17 



CHAP T E R 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



BLM would collaborate with affected interests to 
determine which segments of rivers warrant 
minimum instream flow to maintain important 
water-related resource values. Table 2-7 depicts 
those segments that could be the subject of such 
studies. Should instream flow strategies be 
reached, water related values could be protect- 
ed from future impacts. 

Through state designation of 7 miles of the West 
Fork Beaver Dam Wash as an antidegradation 
segment, water-related resource values would 
be protected through best management prac- 
tices, requiring plans of operation for beatable 
mineral development, placing limitations on 
OHV use, closing the area to mineral materials 
sales and fuelwood harvest, and by applying an 
ACEC designation. The North Fork of the Virgin 
River would also continue to be protected 
through the existing antidegradation classifica- 
tion. 

Where possible, BLM would seek to acquire 
water rights in coordination with the State of 
Utah to support public land management pur- 
poses, including livestock, wildlife, and recre- 
ation uses. This would continue to provide for 
multiple uses and protection of water-related 
needs within the resource area. 

Issuance of up to 25 rights-of-way per year, dis- 
turbing approximately 36 acres per year, could 
impact portions of the Virgin River, Beaver Dam 
Wash, Santa Clara River, Ash Creek, Quail 
Creek, and North Creek. TDS and sediment 
loads would temporarily increase but would not 
be expected to violate state water quality stan- 
dards other than short-term degradation for any 
of the rivers. 

Land uses on up to 1 8,000 acres that could be 
transferred out of federal ownership could 
change from livestock grazing and dispersed 
recreation to other uses including industrial, 
commercial, and residential purposes. 
Degradation would be expected to occur from 
nonpoint source pollution resulting from growth 
and development-related activities. During con- 
struction, there would be increased urban runoff 
and sediment production. In the long term, 
streets, parking lots, buildings, and landscaping 
would restore cover but would probably 



increase urban runoff. During rainfall events, 
water pollution in overland flow and streams 
near communities would change from high lev- 
els of suspended sediments to chemicals from 
automobiles, fertilizers, pesticides, fuel storage 
sites, and sewer systems. Overall, water quality 
would likely deteriorate in the Virgin River, 
Santa Clara River, and in Short, LaVerkin, and 
Leeds Creeks, and Fort Pearce Wash from land 
transfers and subsequent construction. Control 
of nonpoint source pollution would be difficult. 

Acquisition of public access to Deep Creek 
would increase visitor use. The additional use 
could cause an increase in human waste and 
discarded materials entering the streams. Deep 
Creek is classified as a IC river by the State of 
Utah, which means that its water quality should 
be such that the water is suitable for domestic 
purposes with prior treatment. Deep Creek has 
a higher water quality standard and is more at 
risk from increased visitor use. However, Deep 
Creek drains into the North Fork of the Virgin 
River above the "Narrows", a water hike in Zion 
National Park that receives thousands of visitors 
each year. Any added pollution that Deep 
Creek might contribute to the Virgin River could 
not be detected below the "Narrows." 

Of the six potential reservoir sites recognized 
through this Proposed Plan, it is anticipated that 
two of the sites could be developed as such 
over the life of this Plan. Of the six sites, four 
are located on-stream (Dry Creek, Lower 
LaVerkin Creek, Grapevine Wash, and Leeds 
Creek), while two are off-stream sites and would 
require stream flows to be piped to the pro- 
posed locations (Anderson Junction and Warner 
Valley). Any impoundment would modify the 
natural flows of the source rivers and receiving 
tributaries. Usually, this means a reduction in 
the winter/spring flows and an increase in the 
summer flows. These changes may be separated 
by several miles as there is often a considerable 
distance between where the water is diverted 
and where the water is reintroduced to the 
hydrologic system. There is also a net loss of 
water due to evaporation increases and con- 
sumptive water uses. Water quality could 
improve below the dams because of reduced silt 
load if the reservoirs were constructed on- 
stream. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.18 



CHAP T E R 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



Although the six potential reservoir sites pro- 
posed by the State of Utah or the WCWCD are 
recognized within this Proposed Plan, numerous 
potential conflicts still exist with many of the 
sites should construction be proposed. Table 3-4 
provides a preliminary screening of issues or 
conflicts with established resources and with 
other decisions in the Proposed Plan that would 
be analyzed in detail should a right-of-way 
application or land exchange proposal for these 
sites be forthcoming. 

Conversion of 1,220 acres from a pinion, 
juniper, and sagebrush vegetative type to a grass 



type would increase runoff before vegetation 
regrowth occurs. Treatment would take place 
during late fall and winter to allow for optimum 
spring growth. Generally, after 1 year, vegeta- 
tion would improve the overall watershed con- 
ditions. Long-term sediment yield would be 
reduced because increased vegetation cover 
would protect soils and reduce runoff. 

Recreation and/or site development could dis- 
turb up to 30 acres near LaVerkin Creek, North 
Creek, and the Virgin River. The disturbance 
would be away from the water, although during 
construction a temporary increase in sediment 
loads is anticipated. These activities are expect- 



TABLE 3-4 • Possible Issues/Conflicts with Potential Reservoir Sites 



POTENTIAL RESERVOIR SITE 



POSSIBLE ISSUES/CONFLICTS 



Dry Creek (on-siream sile) 



- Riparian resources 

- Right-of-way avoidance area 
-VRM Class II area 

- Grazing - Dry Creek 

and Mm. Dell 



- High erosion hazard soils 

- Fuelwood harvest area 

- Cultural resources 

- Allotments 



Lower LaVerkin Creek 
(on-stream site) 



Anderson Junction (off-stream site) 



- Riparian resources 

■ Right-of-way avoidance area 
■VRM Class II area 

■ LaVerkin Creek/Black 

Ridge SRMA 

■ Cultural resources 

■ Grazing - LaVerkin Creek Allotment 



■ Navajo Aquifer high value recharge zone 

■ High erosion hazard soils 

■ Cultural resources 



Potential geologic 
problems with 
gypsiferous soils 
- LaVerkin Creek water 
falls/associated 
recreation area 



Grapevine Wash (on-stream site) 
WCWCD officials have reported 
that this site has been found t 
have limited reservoir potential 
and is no longer under active 
consideration (Morgan Jensen, 
personal communication, 1977) 



- Riparian resources 

- Navajo Aquifer high 

value recharge zone 

- Mule deer crucial 

winter range 

■ Riparian resources 

■ Right-of-way avoidance area 

■ Cultural resources 



• High erosion hazard 

soils/gypsiferous soils 

• Right-of-way corridor 
■ Cultural resources 

Leeds Creek (on-slream site) 
High erosion hazard 
soils/gypsiferous soils 



Warner Valley (off-stream site) 



■ High erosion hazard 

soils/gypsiferous soils 

■ Crazing - Fort Pearce and 

Warner Valley 



- Sand Mountain SRMA 
■ Cultural resources 
■Allotments 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.19 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



ed to be within Utah's water quality standards. 
As recreation use continues to expand, adverse 
water quality impacts would occur. Although 
OHV use in riparian/wetland areas would be 
either limited and closed, enforcement would 
continue to be difficult. In addition, dispersed 
camping near creeks, streams, and rivers 
throughout the resource area would degrade 
water quality from garbage and human waste 
left behind. Seasonal camping limitations 
(October 15 - November 15) of 0.25 miles 
away from springs, seeps, catchments, and 
guzzlers on the western part of the resource 
area during hunting season would provide 
temporary protection from recreation/hunting- 
related degradation. 

Livestock would continue to use riparian areas 
for forage, resting, and drinking, except in those 
areas that are protected through fencing. 
Concentrated livestock use would result in bank 
erosion, increased siltation, and load streams 
with animal waste products. There are 6,771 
acres of riparian vegetation included within 
grazing allotments in the resource area. 
Reductions in water quality from continued 
grazing of livestock are not expected to be sig- 
nificant. Monitored streams presently do not 
exceed State Water Quality Standards for total 
suspended particulate or colliform bacteria that 
are indicators of fecal pollution (Utah Division 
of Water Quality 1994). However, the Santa 
Clara River has been identified by Utah DWQ 
as not fully supporting beneficial uses for fish, 
wildlife, and municipal use due to high levels of 
TDS and low levels of dissolved oxygen. It is 
likely that BLM-authorized grazing contributes 
only a small portion to this problem because the 
river flows mostly through private land where 
intensive livestock grazing and agricultural prac- 
tices occur. Livestock use, unless modified, 
would continue to graze in the riparian vegeta- 
tion for up to 7 months each year along the 
Santa Clara River, adding to the reduction in 
water quality. 

Impacts to water quality from mineral explo- 
ration and development on 800 acres would 
affect water quality because of stream and wash 
crossings by exploration and haul roads. 
Sediments would be increased and organic 
debris added to the streams that are crossed. 
Increases would be temporary for exploration 



but long term if stream crossings were needed 
for mineral production purposes. Mine sites 
would be monitored and regulated by Utah 
DWQ as point sources of pollution. Utah 
DWQ would assure that water quality would be 
protected before issuing discharge permits to 
mining operations. 

There are no anticipated activities that would 
threaten groundwater quality in the 22,650 acre 
Navajo Sandstone Aquifer high recharge area. 

Impacts on Riparian Resources 

Overall, the condition and functions of the 
riparian areas within the resource area are 
expected to improve through the decisions 
implemented in this Proposed Plan. 
Approximately 56 percent of the riparian habitat 
in the resource area would be maintained in 
properly functioning condition, while 34 per- 
cent is expected to be enhanced toward func- 
tioning condition through actions described in 
this Proposed Plan. The remaining 10 percent 
of riparian areas are in need of studies to deter- 
mine condition and actions needed to improve 
those conditions if necessary. Any activity with- 
in riparian areas would be subject to standard or 
special stipulations in leases or permits, includ- 
ing the stipulations in Appendix 1 . 

Riparian areas would only be disposed of if 
equal or better riparian habitat could be 
acquired by BLM through land exchanges. 
Goals of exchanges would be to improve and 
enhance existing riparian areas. Existing Utah 
BLM Riparian policies would be continued, gen- 
erally discouraging major new surface disturb- 
ing activity within 100 yards of riparian areas. 

In general, land acquisition of specified tracts of 
land would result in increased acreage of ripari- 
an habitat on BLM-administered lands. 
Protection provided on the additional acres 
could increase plant vigor and species diversity, 
depending on the current condition of the ripar- 
ian areas. BLM recognizes that resources locat- 
ed in riparian areas greatly depend on the exis- 
tence of natural flows. BLM's objective for 
riparian habitats would be to improve these 
areas to a properly functioning condition. 

Collaboration with affected interests for projects 
within and near riparian habitats would be key 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.20 



C H A P T E R 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



to the conservation/preservation of these sys- 
tems. Partnership efforts would also help in the 
development of strategies to ensure progress in 
meeting management goals and objectives of 
these sensitive resources. 

Rights-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas 
identified in this Proposed Plan would protect 
the majority of 6,771 acres of riparian habitat. 
This would provide for protection of riparian 
habitat from potential disturbance due to right- 
of-way activities. However, this does not pre- 
clude surface disturbing activities in riparian 
areas, specifically when there are no other feasi- 
ble alternative routes. Any disturbance would 
be considered short term, consisting mainly of 
limited removal of riparian vegetation and 
increases in sediment erosion transport. All dis- 
turbance would require intensive reclamation 
through mitigation stipulations applied to the 
right-of-way permit or through terms and condi- 
tions of the permits. 

Locatable mineral exploration could disturb up 
to 2 acres of riparian vegetation along the 
West/East Fork of the Beaver Dam Wash and at 
Silver Reef as a result of potential stream cross- 
ings over the life of the Plan. This would be 
much less than 1 percent of the 6,771 acres of 
riparian vegetation in the resource area; howev- 
er, appropriate mitigation measures would help 
lessen the impact to specific areas on a case-by- 
case basis. Disturbance at road crossings in 
riparian areas could result in long term loss of 
less than 1 acre of riparian vegetation. 

Two potential reservoir sites could occur in the 
following areas: Leeds Creek, Grapevine Wash, 
Warner Valley, Anderson Junction, Dry Creek, 
and at lower La Verkin Creek. It is projected 
that development of the reservoirs could disturb 
or inundate between 250 to 500 acres in and 
around the construction sites. Of the six sites 
identified, four could be developed on-stream 
(Leeds Creek, Grapevine Wash, Dry Creek, and 
La Verkin Creek), if an on-stream reservoir is 
developed, an undetermined amount of riparian 
vegetation could be destroyed and permanently 
lost. Off-stream construction of a reservoir 
would limit disturbance of riparian zones to the 
diversion sites and would remove minimal ripar- 
ian vegetation. 



Generally, grazing would continue in riparian 
areas where such riparian areas are considered 
to be in properly functioning condition and can 
be maintained in that condition. In those areas 
where the riparian vegetation is at risk or non- 
functional, grazing management would be 
improved through proper livestock control or 
distribution. Implementation of Standards for 
Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing 
Management would identify and provide criteria 
that requires protection in riparian areas. BLM 
would continue to conduct assessments and 
monitoring to determine where problems exist, 
to determine the cause of the problems, and to 
take necessary action to remedy the specific sit- 
uations. Where grazing patterns or increased 
recreational use are believed to be adversely 
impacting goals for riparian management, 
impacts on key riparian species would be moni- 
tored on the Santa Clara River below Gunlock 
reservoir, Santa Clara River Land Hill Segment, 
and Fort Pearce Wash near the ruins. More seg- 
ments could be added to this list as resource 
conditions warrant and priorities allow. If 
declining trends are identified, BLM would work 
with livestock operators and other affected inter- 
ests to establish the causes and recommend cor- 
rective actions. These actions could include 
fencing, barriers, selected closures, vegetation 
manipulation, and seasonal use restrictions, as 
well as adjustments in grazing management. Up 
to 5 acres of riparian vegetation could be dis- 
turbed due to fencing and barrier construction. 
However, because the new facilities would pro- 
vide more control of livestock movement and 
distribution of grazing, plant vigor and species 
diversity would improve riparian vegetation over 
the long term. 

All riparian areas would be protected from addi- 
tional resource degradation through limited and 
closed OHV designations. Actual protection 
afforded would be directly related to the levels 
of compliance and enforcement received. 

Impacts on Vegetation Resources 

Vegetation Composition 

Through the implementation of Utah's Standards 
for Rangeland Health, management of \/egeta- 
tion resources would be to ensure that the 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.21 



CHAPTER 3 ° ENViRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



amount, type, and distribution of vegetation on 
public lands reflects desired plant communities. 
These are communities that produce the kind, 
proportion, and amount of vegetation necessary 
to meet or exceed management objectives for a 
given ecological site. Positive impacts would 
occur through development and maintenance of 
communities that would sustain a desired level 
of vegetation productivity for wildlife, livestock, 
and nonconsumptive purposes, while maintain- 
ing properly functioning ecological conditions. 
Implementation of management practices as 
identified and analyzed in the forthcoming 
Dixie Fire Management Plan, existing allotment 
management plans, habitat management plans, 
other activity plans, and wildlife, watershed, 
livestock, and riparian resources would improve 
vegetative productivity. 

Specifically, the mountain shrub and sagebrush 
type could be manipulated to maximize habitat 
diversity by reducing the amount of shrub and 
sagebrush and increasing grasses and forbs in 
selected areas. In the pinion-juniper woodland 
type, habitat diversity would be maximized by 
reducing the number of trees and increasing 
desirable shrubs, grasses, and forbs. In riparian 
areas within the mountain shrub type, habitat 
diversity would be maximized by maintaining 
woody species composition while providing for 
streambank protection through adequate forb 
and grass cover. 

Wherever possible, perpetuation of native plant 
species would be emphasized. Positive impacts 
could result through restoration and rehabilita- 
tion of disturbed or degraded rangelands with 
native plant species. However, the seed source 
may often not be available, or economically fea- 
sible, or may not achieve ecological objectives 
for specific areas. Also, native species may not 
be able to compete with already established 
non-native species. Seed mixes used for reha- 
bilitation would contribute to maintaining a 
diversity of plant species suitable for soils, cli- 
mate, and landform. Seed mixes would also 
benefit a range of purposes including, but not 
limited to, wildlife, watershed, soil retention, 
livestock, visual resources, and fire ecology. 

Temporary livestock grazing closures on burns, 
reseeded areas, or other treated areas would 
allow for vegetation reestablishment in these 
disturbed areas. 



In cooperation with Washington County and 
through cooperative agreements, BLM would 
continue to provide for the control of undesir- 
able weed species on public land. Integrated 
weed management proposals could eliminate 
noxious weed spread prior to their establish- 
ment and would attempt to control already 
established weed populations. 

Elimination of desert vegetation sales throughout 
the resource area would protect highly sought 
after desert plants, particularly in areas adjacent 
to growing communities where desert landscap- 
ing is becoming ever more popular. 

Special Status Plant Species 

Listed Species: 

Actions identified in the Proposed Plan to pro- 
tect and enhance, and eventually recover listed 
species include: 

• Retention of habitat in public ownership 

• Protection from off-road travel by limiting 
motorized vehicle use to designated roads 
and trails 

• Acquisition of lands for special status 
species 

• Designation of such habitats as rights-of- 
way avoidance areas (outside of designat- 
ed utility corridor routes and the proposed 
Southern Transportation Corridor route) 

• Selected fencing of such habitats 

• Public education of habitat areas 

• Signing 

• Law enforcement measures 

• Designation as Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern (ACECs) with spe- 
cific management objectives 

• Withdrawal of the Red Bluff ACEC and 
Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce ACEC from 
beatable mineral entry 

• Closure of listed species habitats to miner- 
al materials sales 

• Placing restrictions on fluid mineral leas- 
ing by applying a No Surface Occupancy 
stipulation within the ACECs, and a 
Special Stipulation (Category 2) in habitat 
outside of the ACECs. Habitat within city 
limits is closed by regulation and includes 
those important areas near and around 
Webb Hill 

• Closure to fuelwood sales 

• Closure to vegetation sales 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.22 



C H A P T E 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



In combination, the listed actions would elimi- 
nate direct and indirect impacts or reduce 
impacts to acceptable levels that would not 
jeopardize the species. Fencing specific areas 
to control livestock movement or to eliminate 
human use would prevent the destruction or 
removal of special status plants. 

Locatable mineral exploration and development 
could potentially affect the listed plant species 
habitat outside of the two ACECs proposed for 
withdrawal. However, the listed species habitat 
is in a low potential locatable mineral area. 
Prior to authorization for any mineral-related 
operation in the listed plant habitat, a Section 7 
consultation with the FWS would be required. 

An existing bicycle trail within the Red Bluff 
ACEC would be designated. Maintenance 
and/or reconstruction of this trail would be sub- 
ject to Section 7 consultation prior to designa- 
tion. Partnership efforts would be used to assist 
BLM in the management and appropriate use of 
this trail and to enforce proper trail use to pro- 
tect sensitive species habitat within this area. 

A proposed transportation route could traverse 
through the southern portion of the Warner 
Ridge/Fort Pearce ACEC, which contains the 
endangered dwarf bear-claw poppy and the 
threatened Siieri pincushion cactus. BLM would 
work with proponents to identify an environ- 
mentally preferred route and a Section 7 consul- 
tation with the FWS would be required. 
Mitigation could include land exchanges for 
equal or better habitat, and/or avoidance of this 
habitat type and known populations of the 
plants. 



off-highway vehicle travel to designated roads 
and trails. Habitat areas in the ACECs would be 
protected by a No Surface Occupancy category 
for fluid minerals. Any proposed operations in 
habitat areas outside of the ACECs would be 
subject to the standard leasing stipulations iden- 
tified in Appendix 1 . Known candidate species 
habitat occurs in areas within low potential for 
fluid mineral development. Chemical herbi- 
cides and pesticides would not be allowed on 
or near these known habitat areas to protect the 
species and their natural pollinators from 
impacts of these chemicals. Where necessary, 
isolated populations of Hermit's Milkvetch 
under 10 acres in size would be fenced to pre- 
vent inadvertent destruction of plants. 
Development and implementation of a conser- 
vation plan incorporating these measures should 
ensure the protection and enhancement of the 
two candidate species and eliminate the need 
for formal listing under the Endangered Species 
Act. Future conservation agreements for these 
two candidate plant species would identify 
threats and provide management options to 
eliminated such threats. 

Other state-listed sensitive plant species (listed 
in Appendix 4) exist in the resource area; how- 
ever, little information is available concerning 
their habitat requirements and baseline species 
conditions. Joint efforts and cooperative studies 
will help form strategies for habitat protection to 
eliminate the need for future protective actions. 

Impacts on Fish and 
Wildlife Habitat Management 

General Wildlife 



Candidate Species and 
other Sensitive Plant Species: 

The two milk vetches that are on the Federal 
Candidate Species List occur in tiny isolated 
populations in the southern part of the resource 
area. Management of these populations can be 
difficult. 

To reduce conflicts and additional disturbance, 
habitat areas would be designated right-of-way 
avoidance areas, and be closed to fuelwood and 
mineral materials sales. Plants would also be 
protected by restricting mountain bike use and 



Many proposals throughout the Proposed Plan 
have been designed specifically to benefit 
wildlife and wildlife habitat. Such measures 
could include: 1) acquisition of important habi- 
tat, 2) preservation of key habitats, corridors, 
migration routes, and nesting and spawning 
areas, 3) consolidation of public lands to 
improve habitat management, 4) protection of 
mule deer crucial winter ranges and elk calving 
areas, 5) maintenance and/or development of 
additional water sources, 6) continued imple- 
mentation of existing Habitat Management Plans 
and completion of the West Zion Habitat 
Management Plan, and 7) utilization of fire 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.23 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



management and forestry management to 
improve wildlife habitat in selected areas. This 
Plan also considers the use of off-highway vehi- 
cle restrictions, Category 2 and 3 mineral leas- 
ing restrictions, pesticide restrictions, mineral 
materials sale closures, camping restrictions 
near water sources, riparian enhancements, and 
other restrictive measures to protect and 
enhance wildlife habitats. Analysis of these 
decisions is discussed under specific program 
headings. 

Limiting adverse impacts to big game crucial 
habitat from urbanization and encroachment 
would preserve the integrity of that habitat for 
migration routes and corridors and access to key 
forage sites. This would be implemented 
through consolidation of blocks of public lands 
as well as limiting potentially impacting uses 
that could occur on these lands. Crucial deer 
winter range and elk calving areas would be 
protected from potential effects of fluid mineral 
leasing through seasonal restrictions allowed 
under a Category 2 stipulation. The same sea- 
sonal restrictions would be applied to mineral 
materials sales, forest product sales, and rights- 
of-way construction. Prescribed burns in select- 
ed areas would be used to improve vegetation 
composition for the benefit of wildlife habitat 
and big game. Commercial sales and/or pre- 
scribed burning of pinion-juniper would be used 
to improve mule deer habitat in the Potters Peak 
area. 

Seasonal camping restrictions on the western 
portion of the resource area in and around 
water sources during the fall hunting season 
would prevent harassment and ensure access for 
water needs to big game. Water developments 
for wildlife needs would be considered as 
deemed necessary in ongoing and subsequent 
activity level plans in coordination with the 
Utah DWR and other interested parties to 
ensure maintenance of populations and reliable 
water sources. 

Desert bighorn sheep populations would be 
maintained through collaborative management 
with the Utah DWR, maintenance of water 
catchments, and preventing domestic sheep 
interactions by not permitting changes in class 
of livestock from cattle to sheep in habitat areas. 
These actions would preserve the integrity and 
health of the existing populations. 



Viable fisheries habitat throughout the resource 
area would be protected by off-highway vehicle 
restrictions, a No Surface Occupancy stipulation 
for fluid mineral leasing, pesticide restrictions, 
and closure to mineral materials sales. 
Enhancement would occur through riparian 
improvements, stream bank stabilization, gabion 
construction in suitable areas, water quality 
improvements, and selected acquisitions in con- 
junction with riparian management objectives. 

Special Status Animal Species 

Continued management of public lands in 
accordance with the goals and objectives of 
recovery plans, conservation agreements, activi- 
ty level planning, and the HCP implementation 
agreement are designed to ensure that manage- 
ment would assist in the rehabilitation of declin- 
ing populations and prevent the need for future 
additional listings. 

Desert Tortoise 

Washington County, in the southwestern portion 
of Utah, is one of the nation's fastest growing 
counties and home of the highest density of 
Mojave desert tortoises in the United States. 
Actions taken in this Proposed Plan would pro- 
vide a comprehensive approach to preserving 
and protecting this species, while at the same 
time allowing for minimal surface disturbing 
activities in those portions of habitat that are 
less essential to the species. 

Management Common to All Critical 

Tortoise Populations and Habitat 

on the Beaver Dam Slope and within the 

Washington County HCP Area 

Through the establishment of extensive rights-of- 
way avoidance areas, desert tortoise critical 
habitat would be protected from surface disturb- 
ing activities associated with rights-of-way 
development. This would include approximate- 
ly 82,500 acres which encompasses all critical 
desert tortoise habitat outside of the proposed 
and existing utility corridors. Avoidance desig- 
nations would provide for the long-term preser- 
vation of these habitats. Where other alternative 
routes are not feasible, future rights-of-way that 
are allowed within the critical habitat would 
have continued protection of the Endangered 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.24 



CHAPTER 3 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



Species Act through mitigation stipulated by a 
Section 7 consultation with the FWS. 

All desert tortoise critical habitat would be 
closed to saleable mineral development (i.e., 
sand and gravel sales, decorative rock, etc.); 
therefore, no impacts to tortoise would occur 
from saleable minerals. 

All critical desert tortoise habitat would be 
closed to fuelwood and vegetative sales to pro- 
tect tortoise and habitat from plant removal and 
vehicle damage. 

Fire suppression guidelines and techniques in 
desert tortoise critical habitat would use the 
least disruptive approach to initial attack and 
fire suppression needed to extinguish the fire 
and meet other resource objectives for the 
affected area. Qualified resource advisors 
would be onsite during fire suppression to guide 
firefighter activities and minimize harm to tor- 
toise and important habitats. 

Proposed predator control in tortoise habitat 
would reduce the loss of hatchlings and juvenile 
tortoise to predators such as coyotes and ravens. 

For any activity that may affect the habitat or 
animal, a Section 7 consultation would provide 
mitigation and protection. 

The Beaver Dam Slope Tortoise Population 

BLM is proposing consistent land use prescrip- 
tions across state lines designed to protect and 
help recover declining tortoise populations in 
accordance with the desert tortoise recovery 
plans hi' tile Northeaslern Mojave Recovery 
Unit. In Utah, the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC has 
been proposed for this purpose. In addition, the 
ACEC would also be managed Lo protect and 
further the objectives of the Woodbury Desert 
Study Area, the Joshua Tree National Natural 
Landmark, and the maintenance of important 
desert ecosystems that include numerous other 
plants and animals listed under state and federal 
procedures. Although critical habitat for the 
desert tortoise has been identified outside of the 
ACEC boundary, BLM has been coordinating 
with the FWS and the Utah DWR to preserve 
quality habitat areas and implement land use 
prescriptions designed to promote tortoise via- 



bility and recovery. Such action would allow 
for the modification of the critical habitat 
boundary to coincide with the proposed Beaver 
Dam Slope ACEC boundary. 

In this specific habitat area, it is anticipated that 
approximately 2,439 acres could be acquired 
for consolidation and protection of critical 
desert tortoise habitat within the ACEC and 
long-term population viability. 

There are approximately 6,242 acres of critical 
habitat within two established utility corridors 
and one proposed utility corridor. The reason- 
able foreseeable action scenario would be to 
construct approximately two major rights-of-way 
within each corridor that could disturb up to 
approximately 1.5 acres per mile within the 
Beaver Dam Slope ACEC and other desert tor- 
toise critical habitat. The 1 -mile-wide existing 
IPP corridor contains 4,750 acres of tortoise 
habitat and traverses approximately 7 miles of 
the critical habitat. The existing Navajo- 
McCullough corridor is also 1-mile wide and 
contains approximately 1,204 acres in a 2-mile 
stretch through desert tortoise critical habitat. 
The route of Old Highway 91 across the Beaver 
Dam Slope from the Shivwits Reservation to the 
Arizona border contains a proposed corridor 
that would be limited to the existing right-of- 
way fence on each side of the roadway and 
contains approximately 288 acres of critical 
desert tortoise habitat within about 3.5 miles. 
Disturbance from future rights-of-way is estimat- 
ed to disturb approximately 37.5 acres within 
the three corridors. Prior to additional right-of- 
way authorizations within the existing corridors. 
Section 7 consLiltation with the FWS woLild be 
required. 

Through a reasonable foreseeable action sce- 
nario, it was estimated that up to 800 acres 
could be disturbed within the high potential 
locatable mineral area throughout the western 
portion of the resource area. Map 3.5 in the 
Draft RMP portrays this extensive area. Desert 
tortoise critical habitat overlays less than one 
third of this high potential area. Therefore, a 
reasonably foreseeable action for lands contain- 
ing critical habitat could result in additional sur- 
face disturbances from potential exploration 
and/or mining on up to 266 acres on the Beaver 
Dam Slope. The surface disturbing activities 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANACCMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.25 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



noted above would result in general wildlife 
habitat degradation; however, the primary com- 
ponents of good desert tortoise habitat should 
be maintained from mitigation required through 
Section 7 consultation with the FWS. 

All 63,579 acres of the critical habitat on the 
Beaver Dam Slope is in a high mineral potential 
area. In the proposed Beaver Dam Slope ACEC, 
the whole 48,519 acres would require plans of 
operation on all proposed mining operations. 
Such plans would allow the preparation of envi- 
ronmental studies and application of reasonable 
measures to reduce or eliminate impacts. The 
other 15,060 acres of critical habitat not includ- 
ed in the proposed ACEC designation would be 
open for locatable mineral development and 
plans of operation would be required for all 
mining related activities causing greater than 5 
acres of disturbance. In accordance with the 
FWS and the Utah DWR, the 1 5,060 acres of 
tortoise habitat outside of the ACEC was deter- 
mined to be marginal habitat for tortoises. The 
critical habitat designation in this area would be 
dropped once the ACEC boundary is in place 
and the proper federal procedures are followed 
and completed for changing the critical habitat 
boundary. Under either scenario, impacts to the 
desert tortoise and its habitat would be mitigat- 
ed through Section 7 consultation. 

Within the 48,51 9 acres in the ACEC, fluid min- 
eral leasing would be allowed under Category 3 
stipulations, constituting No Surface Occup- 
ancy. Thus, no direct impact to tortoises are 
anticipated. On 1 5,060 acres of critical habitat 
located outside of the ACEC, fluid mineral leas- 
ing would be allowed under a Category 2 stipu- 
lation that would limit exploration and develop- 
ment to the tortoise inactive season from 
October 15 through March 15 of each year. 
Standard operating procedures, as well as exist- 
ing state and federal regulations, would ensure 
avoidance of individual animals in accordance 
with Section 7 consultation. Because this area 
is considered low potential for fluid minerals, 
impacts to desert tortoise would be considered 
negligible. 

Grazing has been an historical use of the Beaver 
Dam Slope area since the European settlement 
of southern Utah. Under the Proposed Plan, the 
majority of critical habitat within the Beaver 



Dam Slope ACEC area would have spring graz- 
ing deferred. In accordance with an earlier bio- 
logical opinion by the FWS, removal and defer- 
ment of spring grazing in portions of three allot- 
ments, which include Castle Cliffs, Beaver Dam 
Slope, and Scarecrow Peak would increase the 
amount of available vegetation used by desert 
tortoises for food and cover and is considered 
necessary to reduce potential conflicts during 
the tortoise active season. Deferment of spring 
grazing would also reduce the trampling of shal- 
low dens and pallets. Livestock use within this 
restricted portion of the ACEC would be in 
accordance with the Allotment Management 
Plans (AMPs) which would allow grazing each 
year, but only during the tortoise inactive period 
generally determined to be from November 1 to 
March 15. There would be no authorized live- 
stock use from March 16 to October 31 each 
year. 

There are also approximately 13,803 acres with- 
in the ACEC comprising three special manage- 
ment areas recommended by the Utah DWR and 
BLM, which place emphasis on nontortoise 
issues and would not require any livestock 
restrictions. Although portions of the special 
management areas contain critical desert tortoise 
habitat, coordinated efforts with federal and state 
governments have determined that only grazing 
on portions of the three mentioned allotments 
need to be deferred. Livestock use within these 
nonrestricted areas would be in accordance with 
the four applicable AMPs for Scarecrow Peak, 
Beaver Dam Wash, Castle Cliffs, and lackson 
Wash allotments. The season of use for the first 
three listed allotments is from November 1 to 
May 31, and for the Jackson Wash allotment it is 
from November 16 to May 20. In general, the 
AMPs prescribe rotational grazing between pas- 
tures which would provide periodic rest to areas 
outside the grazing restriction zone. The nonre- 
stricted areas within the ACEC, which contain 
low densities of tortoise, represent only a small 
portion of larger pastures and, as such, would be 
managed the same as the other lands within 
those pastures. 

Just north of the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC, 
approximately 15,060 acres of critical habitat 
would remain open for spring grazing use for 
those portions of the Scarecrow Peak and 
Jackson Wash Allotments in accordance with 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.26 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



the AMPs for the allotments. Studies have deter- 
mined that this area contains very low densities 
of tortoises. Cattle use in this area is from 
November 16 lo May 20 and rotational grazing 
occurs between pastures. Allowing spring graz- 
ing within critical habitat area would continue 
interspecies competition for food during the tor- 
toise active season. The potential for trampling 
would also increase as grazing occurs during 
the active season. Actual impacts are expected 
to be low because of the low densities and 
lower quality of habitat. 

The Beaver Dam Slope ACEC is an area of low 
intensity recreational use consisting mostly of 
vehicle travel on existing roads in order to see 
specific points of interest including the 
Woodbury Desert Study area and the Joshua 
Tree National Natural Landmark. Within the 
Beaver Dam Wash itself, increased road use 
occurs due to the presence of private properties 
throughout the wash. Through this planning 
process, OHV use would be limited to designat- 
ed roads and trails within the ACEC. The rest of 
the slope area would be limited to existing 
roads and trails. (See Map 2.13) Limiting OHV 
use in this manner would eliminate vegetative 
crushing by cross- country travel, thereby pro- 
tecting forage and cover. Surface dens and pal- 
lets would be protected from damage and the 
tortoises would be protected from being ran 
over and accidentally killed. Some mortality 
could still occur on roads. However, this desig- 
nation would also reduce road proliferation in 
the area. Speed limits and road closures would 
also be determined to help minimize accidental 
tortoise death from vehicle impacts. Within the 
ACEC, the "limited to designated roads and 
trails designation" would require further activity 
level planning to determine those roads most 
suitable for continued OHV use within this 
habitat. Until such time that the activity level 
plan is completed, existing roads would remain 
open to use. OHV planning for this area is a 
high priority and would be done expeditiously. 
Fences would be constructed as necessary to 
implement the restrictions and closures. 

Additionally, mountain bikes would be allowed 
to use existing roads and trails, and camping 
would be restricted to within 25 feet of desig- 
nated roads to reduce recreation/tortoise 
conflicts. 



No competitive recreational events would be 
allowed; thus, no impact to tortoise would 
occur from these types of events. 

BLM would continue to authorize and support 
research needed to determine habitat require- 
ments, causes of increased mortality, and other 
essential factors related to the management of 
the desert tortoise and its eventual recovery. 
BLM would also collaborate with the FWS, Utah 
DWR, university researchers, and other interest- 
ed parties in developing and implementing 
monitoring studies that would evaluate popula- 
tion trends, tortoise health, vegetation condition 
and trends, and other factors needed to assess 
the effectiveness of management actions. 
Where it is determined that recovery objectives 
are not being met, BLM would work with its 
interested partners to determine the cause of 
such failure and to adjust its management pre- 
scriptions accordingly. 

In addition, BLM would also implement public 
education and enforcement actions needed to 
accomplish the objective of tortoise recovery. 
Public education would increase the awareness 
of important desert ecosystems in Washington 
County. 

The restrictive measures provided for in the 
Proposed Plan are in near complete accordance 
with the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan and 
could significantly reduce desert tortoise mortal- 
ity resulting from human-induced sources and 
serve to maintain habitat and ecological integri- 
ty. It would also maintain long-term viability 
and promote future recovery of the species. 

The Washington County 
HCP Tortoise Population 

BLM has and will continue to work collabora- 
tively with HCP partners to accomplish the 
goals and objectives of the HCP which were 
designed to provide a comprehensive approach 
to preserve and enhance Mojave desert tortoise 
habitat north of St. George City. HCP partners 
include Washington County, the Utah 
Department of Natural Resources, the FWS, the 
town of Ivins (representing numerous municipal- 
ities), and the BLM. These coordinating entities 
have signed an implementation agreement to 
continue to implement the terms of the HCP. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.27 



CHAPTER 3 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



All parties would be involved in monitoring the 
status of tortoise and conducting studies needed 
to accomplish HCP objectives. Such studies 
could lead to adjustments in reserve manage- 
ment to promote recovery of tortoise in the 
reserve. BLM will work with its partners to pur- 
sue a congressional designation of National 
Conservation Area to ensure continued recogni- 
tion and support of critical reserve values. 

Restrictive prescriptions within the HCP Reserve 
are in accordance with the Desert Tortoise 
Recovery Plan and the HCP protocol. These 
actions have been extensively coordinated with 
federal, state, and local agencies. 

Although this is a right-of-way avoidance area, 
the HCP could still authorized new rights-of- 
way in accordance with protocols established in 
the HCP for such purposes. The protocols are 
intended to avoid the most sensitive areas in the 
reserve and to limit habitat disturbance. In 
addition, BLM would recognize a utility corridor 
within the existing, fenced right-of-way on State 
Highway 1 8. Only a few acres of public lands 
currently lie within this corridor in the HCP 
Reserve. 

Through land acquisitions, publicly-owned tor- 
toise habitat could be increased by up to 18,000 
acres. The majority of these acquisitions are 
anticipated to occur within the HCP Reserve 
area north of St. George, Utah. These acquisi- 
tions would protect some of the highest quality 
habitat in Washington County. Acquisition 
would provide for the consolidation of habitat, 
which would help to ensure a viable long-term 
population of desert tortoises. All of these 
acquisitions would increase special status ani- 
mal species land base and would facilitate con- 
sistent management and protection of these 
species. Lands acquired by BLM within the 
HCP would be managed in accordance with 
prescriptions planned for the remainder of the 
area. 

All of the public land and split-estate land in the 
HCP Reserve is proposed for a locatable mineral 
withdrawal constituting approximately 45,270 
acres. The proposed withdrawal of this critical 
habitat from locatable mineral exploration or 
development would provide long-term protec- 



tion from mining-related surface disturbing 
activities. Lands that are later acquired within 
the Reserve would also be withdrawn from 
locatable mineral entry. 

Fluid mineral leasing would be allowed within 
the HCP Reserve under a Category 3 stipulation 
(No Surface Occupancy), which would preclude 
all direct or indirect impacts from exploration or 
development of these resources. Those portions 
of the HCP Reserve that fall within incorporated 
city boundaries (1,088 acres) are closed to fluid 
mineral leasing by law. 

Under this Proposed Plan, livestock grazing 
would be eliminated in four allotments within 
critical desert tortoise habitat in the HCP 
Reserve. All of the critical habitat, except for 
Zone 4, would be improved through the com- 
plete removal of livestock grazing in the four 
allotments. The allotments in which grazing 
would be eliminated include the Alger Hollow, 
Red Cliffs, Yellow Knolls, and Washington allot- 
ments. Removal of grazing would eliminate 
interspecies forage competition and increase the 
amount of available annual and perennial vege- 
tation used by desert tortoises for food and 
cover, and would eliminate trampling of shallow 
dens and pallets. 

Public lands within Zone 4, as well as lands 
outside of the critical habitat within the HCP 
Reserve, would continue to allow grazing. 
Spring grazing in Zone 4 has been voluntarily 
deferred by the permittees to conform to FWS 
recommendations in biological opinions; how- 
ever, the HCP protocol does not require this. 
Grazing permits in Zone 4 could be retired as a 
result of negotiated agreements with the permit 
holders to further protect tortoise habitat. 

Lands acquired through exchange or purchase 
within the HCP Reserve would not be opened to 
grazing; therefore, no impact to tortoises would 
be expected in these areas. 

Due to the location of the HCP Reserve close to 
the urban centers of Washington county, exten- 
sive recreation use continues to expand within 
the HCP Reserve and surrounding areas. 
Known recreation uses within the Reserve 
include rock climbing, mountain biking, horse- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.28 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



back riding, hiking, camping, and off-lnighway 
vehicle use. An activity level plan to determine 
specific trails and use areas for these activities is 
currently under way. Off-highway vehicle use 
within the HCP Reserve would be limited to 
designated roads and trails. The activity level 
plan would also determine roads that would 
remain open for vehicle use as well as roads 
that would continue to be needed only for 
authorized uses. Such planning would be 
geared towards reducing resource conflicts and 
eliminating competitive events that could 
adversely impact desert tortoise. The impact of 
designation would be the same as that 
described for the Beaver Dam Slope. 

That portion of the HCP Reserve that has primi- 
tive recreation values would be closed to all off- 
road vehicle travel to preserve the natural values 
associated with the area; thus, no impacts to 
tortoise would occur from off-highway vehicle 
use in that area (see Map 2.13). 

In those areas where vehicle use would be limit- 
ed to designated roads and trails, speed limits 
would be established to reduce the likelihood of 
accidental mortality from vehicle impacts. 

Fences would be constructed as necessary to 
control tortoise movements and to prevent vehi- 
cle or pedestrian traffic within areas of the HCP 
Reserve. These fences would be built along 
major traffic routes or areas with the potential to 
cause habitat disturbance. Fencing of Reserve 
boundaries would help keep both domestic 
predators (pets) and diseased desert tortoises 
that may be released by the public near urban 
areas from entering the Reserve. 

Although BLM was directed to plan for 
Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) as if Congress 
released them from wilderness consideration 
in this planning effort, there is one WSA 
completely incorporated within the HCP 
boundary, and one WSA partially within the 
HCP boundary. Until such time as Congress 
acts, management of the Cottonwood Canyon 
WSA and the Red Mountain WSA will continue 
to be guided through the Interim Management 
Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under 
Wilderness Review (BLM Manual Handbook H 
8550-1). Stringent management practices 



within WSAs would protect tortoise habitat from 
surface disturbing activities. 

The specific measures addressed above and as 
provided for in the Washington County Desert 
Tortoise Take Permit EIS could significantly 
reduce desert tortoise mortality resulting from 
human-induced sources and serve to maintain 
habitat and ecological integrity. It would also 
maintain long-term viability and promote future 
recovery of the species. 

Other Habitat Areas 

A few small, isolated areas represent fragmented 
habitat and would be managed in accordance 
with proposed land use prescriptions in the 
Proposed Plan as follows: 

• One Category III habitat comprising 
approximately 83 acres northwest of 
Gunlock Reservoir would be open to most 
land uses including rights-of-way, beat- 
able mineral exploration and develop- 
ment, fluid mineral development, mineral 
materials extraction, and would be open 
to OHV use. All of these land uses have 
the potential to cause direct impacts to 
tortoise and habitat. Prior to approving 
site-specific activities, clearances for tor- 
toises would be required. Section 7 con- 
sultation would occur prior to any surface 
disturbing activity if BLM determines that 
a proposal may effect any listed species. 



• A Category I habitat area lies mostly with- 
in the Red Cliffs Recreation area. The 
only uses allowed within this area are for 
recreational purposes, which include hik- 
ing and camping. All OHV use is limited 
to designated roads and trails. This is a 
heavy use area and tortoise harassment or 
collection could occur. 

• Those areas outside of the HCP Reserve 
and the ACEC within critical desert tor- 
toise habitat are designated Category 11 
for fluid mineral leasing, limiting explo- 
ration and development to the tortoise 
inactive season from October 15 through 
March 15. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RCSOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.29 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



• All critical tortoise habitat would be 
closed to fuelwood and mineral materials 
sales and designated right-of-way avoid- 
ance areas outside of utility corridors. 

Overall, the standard stipulations applied to sur- 
face disturbing activities provided for in 
Appendix 1, as well as the requirements of 
Section 7 consultation within known tortoise 
areas outside of the HCP Reserve and Beaver 
Dam Slope ACEC would minimize impacts to 
desert tortoise and its habitat. 

Woundfin Minnow, Virgin River Chub, 
and Virgin Spinedace 

Continued implementation of the 1995 Virgin 
River Fishes Recovery Plan and the 1995 Virgin 
Spinedace Conservation Agreement and Strategy 
provide the goals necessary to ensure that sub- 
ject species would continue to be maintained at 
viable population levels and would also pursue 
down listing and recovery of these species. 
Actions include eliminating potential adverse 
threats to the fish and their habitat through deci- 
sions made under the Riparian, Water, 
Recreation, OHV, Grazing, Lands, Energy and 
Minerals, and Wildlife sections. Some of these 
measures would include the improvement of 
water quality, floodplain protection, point and 
nonpoint source pollution control, land acquisi- 
tion, rights-of-way avoidance areas, riparian 
restoration, habitat enhancement, and elimina- 
tion of species considered a threat. In addition, 
BLM would continue its policy of ensuring 
Section 7 consultation of any activity considered 
to be a "may affect" on any of these species. 

Approximately 4 river miles of Virgin River fish 
habitat would be withdrawn within Washington 
County HCP Reserve from beatable mineral 
entry and 53 river miles would require a plan of 
operation for all surface disturbing activities 
within the four affected ACECs. All other min- 
ing activities disturbing over 5 acres would 
require a plan of operation outside of these 
areas. In effect, all mining activities, including 
notice level operations, would be required to 
prevent undue and unnecessary degradation of 
resources. This would include substantial com- 
pliance with all state and federal environmental 
laws and regulations. Regardless of the size of 
the mineral operation, if a "may affect" situation 



is determined by BLM's authorized officer, the 
FWS must be consulted. 

The vast majority of all Virgin River fish habitat 
would fall under a No Surface Occupancy fluid 
mineral leasing category through a stipulation to 
protect riparian resources. In addition, 43 CFR 
3101.1-2 provides for movement of leasing 
operations up to 200 meters which would be 
applied to reservoirs and perennial streams 
where necessary to prevent surface disturbance, 
pollution, and sedimentation from any actions 
within these riverine areas. 

No mineral materials developments would be 
allowed within any riparian areas, thus protect- 
ing Virgin River fishes and their habitats from 
those types of surface disturbing activities. 

Construction of recreational barriers along the 
Santa Clara River would enhance 88 acres (2.7 
miles) of Virgin spinedace habitat. These recre- 
ational barriers would close some roads and 
parking areas on a yearly rotational basis. 
Fewer visitors and limiting OHV use would pro- 
tect riparian vegetation and stream banks from 
degradation. Long-term protection of Virgin 
spinedace habitat is anticipated from this action. 

OHV use would be either closed or restricted 
within all riparian habitat containing woundfin. 
Virgin River chub, and Virgin spinedace. 
Threatened and endangered and sensitive fish 
species habitat would be protected from loss of 
riparian vegetation and excessive stream silta- 
tion through this closure or limitation. In addi- 
tion, OHV use would be eliminated in the actu- 
al stream channel which could favorably affect 
reproduction of these fish. 

Up to two potential reservoir sites provided for 
on public lands could require a Section 7 con- 
sultation for woundfin minnow and Virgin River 
chub to determine if these reservoir sites could 
be constructed without jeopardizing the contin- 
ued existence of these species. 

Special status animal species and their habitat 
would be protected from surface disturbances 
through designation of ACECs and implementa- 
tion of land use planning prescriptions. 
Designation of the Lower Virgin River ACEC 
(1,822 acres) would provide protection for the 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.30 



CHAP T E R 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



woundfin, Virgin River chub, Virgin spinedace, 
desert sucker, and flannel-mouth sucker habitat. 
Designation of Santa Clara River ACECs for Land 
Hill and below Gunlock (3,643 acres) and the 
Upper Beaver Dam Wash ACEC (33,063 acres) 
would provide protection for Virgin spinedace 
habitat. 

Even given the above management actions, con- 
tinued recreation activities, grazing practices, 
and OHV use would continue to degrade mini- 
mal areas of habitat on a short-term basis along 
riverine systems. 

Peregrine, Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, 
and Mexican Spotted Owl 

There are approximately 6,951 acres of mapped 
habitat on public land in Washington County for 
the peregrine falcon, bald eagle, golden eagle, 
and the Mexican spotted owl. BLM would con- 
tinue to implement existing recovery plans, con- 
duct inventories, protect nesting sites and aeries, 
and preserve associated habitats through the fol- 
lowing actions: 

• Nesting sites and activities would be pro- 
tected by requiring a fluid mineral leasing 
Category II seasonal stipulation applied to 
0.5 mile around active nest sites from 
February 1 through June 30 for the golden 
eagle, March 15 through June 30 for the 
peregrine falcon, and February 1 through 
August 31 for the Mexican spotted owl. 
These seasonal restrictions would also be 
applied to all authorizations including 
fuelwood permits, construction activities, 
and competitive recreational permits. 
Rights-of-way avoidance areas would 
cover approximately 5,673 acres of these 
habitat types and 460 acres in the exclu- 
sion area, thus providing for the long-term 
preservation of the species. 

• Approximately 1,615 acres of mapped 
habitat for these raptor species would be 
proposed for withdrawal from all mineral 
activity, thereby eliminating potential con- 
flicts with locatable mineral exploration 
or development. Locatable mineral plans 
of operation would be required for all sur- 
face disturbing activities on 3,101 acres of 
raptor habitat that fall within ACECs or 
closed OHV areas. Under a plan of oper- 



ation, impacts to these species would be 
mitigated through Section 7 consultation 
with the FWS; however, unavoidable 
adverse impacts may still occur to these 
species due to the nature of hard- rock 
mining operations. Acreage that is not 
protected by withdrawal or a plan of 
operation (2,236 acres) would have con- 
tinued protection under the Endangered 
Species Act. All of this habitat is within 
low potential locatable mineral areas. 

• Mineral materials operations would not 
be allowed within any of these habitat 
types, thereby protecting these species 
from surface disturbing activities related 
to mineral materials authorizations. 

• Protective prescriptions proposed for the 
HCP Reserve, Canaan Mountain ACEC, 
and the Deep Creek SRMA would also 
provide protection for nesting sites and 
associated habitat. Additional protection 
is provided to these species through 
restrictions in riparian habitat areas. 
Proposals for new actions outside of ripar- 
ian areas that could impact bald eagles 
would only be approved after mitigation 

is applied and Section 7 consultation is 
completed with the FWS. 

• New feeding areas could be created for 
peregrine falcons and bald eagles by 
potential construction of up to two new 
reservoirs on public lands within the 
resource area. These potential reservoir 
sites could provide a new prey base for 
peregrine falcon and wintering prey habi- 
tat for bald eagles. 

• Raptor habitat for the peregrine falcon, 
bald eagle, golden eagle, and Mexican 
spotted owl would be protected through 
OHV closures on 3,138 acres, OHV limi- 
tations to designated roads and trails on 

1 ,737 acres, and OHV limitations to exist- 
ing roads and trails on 2,077 acres. 
During nesting periods, disturbance and 
stress associated with human activities in 
the vicinity of a raptor nest could cause 
direct and indirect impacts, including nest 
abandonment or loss of young. 
Sensitivity varies by type of disturbance 
and species. Any direct or indirect impact 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.31 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



from OHV use that causes disturbance to 
nests and results in the disruption of the 
nesting cycle or mortality of the young is 
illegal under federal law. Therefore, it is 
important that closures and limitations to 
OHV use for the protection of these 
species be implemented. 

• Surface disturbing activities that could 
impact special status species or their habi- 
tat would be prohibited on river segments 
with a tentative classification of wild and 
proposed as suitable for congressional 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 
designation. Protective management 
would remain in effect during the interim 
period until Congress dismisses or desig- 
nates these segments as either wild, 
scenic, or recreational river segments. 
Suitability recommendations for Deep 
Creek, Kolob Creek, and East Fork Virgin 
River segments would provide protection 
for peregrine falcon, Mexican spotted 
owl, and goshawk habitat. In addition, 
raptor habitat along LaVerkin Creek and 
the Virgin River near the Beaver Dam 
Mountains Wilderness Area would also 
have continued protection. 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

Currently no designated critical habitat exists in 
Utah for the Southwestern willow flycatcher and 
no recovery plan is in place for this species. 
BLM would continue to work with partners to 
increase its knowledge base of this species. In 
general, enhanced protection would occur 
based on restrictive riparian management 
described throughout the Proposed Plan includ- 
ing: 1 ) Category III (NSO) for fluid minerals, 2) 
OHV closures and limitations, 3) rights-of-way 
avoidance area designation, 4) prohibition of 
fuelwood and mineral materials sales, 5) reten- 
tion or acquisition of potential habitat, and 6) 
and applying seasonal restrictions from April 1 
to August 31 on all other activities. Future stud- 
ies could result in actions to promote the 
reestablishment of desirable plant communities 
(willow and cottonwood) as a benefit to the 
species. OHV closures or restrictions in riparian 
areas would also protect 1,964 acres of poten- 
tial Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. 
Both the improvement of riparian vegetation 



and the absence or restrictions of OHV distur- 
bances would be beneficial for these species. 

Other Sensitive Species 

State-listed species are numerous and are listed 
in Appendix 4. Little information is available 
concerning their habitat requirements and base- 
line population conditions. Cooperative studies 
would help form strategies for habitat protection 
to eliminate the need for potential listing. A few 
listed strategies for specific species include: 

• Management of livestock to promote 
expansion of riparian vegetation in the 
Fort Pearce Wash would improve approxi- 
mately 40 acres of spotted bat habitat by 
expanding their foraging area. In addi- 
tion, this spotted bat habitat would also 
be protected from excessive recreation 
use by prohibiting overnight camping in 
the riparian area at historical Fort Pearce. 
Habitat outside the 40-acre area within 
the Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce ACEC would 
limit OHV use to designated roads and 
trails. Mineral activity would also be 
restricted or closed. No pesticides would 
be allowed within the riparian zone. 

• Future habitat requirements would be 
determined for the northern goshawk and 
the ferruginous hawk, and management 
prescriptions would be identified to 
ensure population levels are maintained 
or enhanced. 

• All native species that are water/riparian 
dependent would be protected or would 
benefit through measures brought forth 
under the Riparian and Water Resources 
sections of the Proposed Plan. Special 
status species occurring within the HCP 
Reserve would also be fully protected or 
would benefit through management deci- 
sions being implemented in this area. 
ACECs, SRMAs, and other areas contain- 
ing special land use prescriptions within 
the resource area would serve to benefit 
many species indigenous to the area. 

Impacts on Livestock Grazing 

Specific actions in this Proposed Plan that 
would impact livestock grazing include land dis- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.32 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



posal and retention policies, retirement of graz- 
ing permits on HCP Reserve allotments, defer- 
ment of spring grazing on portions of three allot- 
ments, and the possible construction of two 
reservoir sites on public land. In addition, 
implementation of the Secretary of the Interior's 
approved Utah Standards for Rangeland Health 
and Guidelines for Grazing Management would 
result in assessments to determine if the stan- 
dards are being met. Where progress is not 
being achieved and grazing is determined to be 
a contributing factor, existing grazing systems 
and practices would be modified so as to bring 
about positive change. Modifications could 
include changes to grazing systems, changes in 
grazing seasons of use, allotment categorization 
revisions, fencing, new water developments for 
improved distribution and utilization, adjust- 
ments in livestock numbers, and vegetation 
treatments or manipulations. These changes 
would be made after monitoring studies deter- 
mine that a change is warranted and affected 
interests are fully involved with the process. 
This would require case-by-case NEPA analysis, 
generally at the activity plan or allotment man- 
agement plan level. 

The transfer of up to 1 8,000 acres of public land 
would result in the actual loss of permitted 
AUMs, thereby potentially impacting livestock 
operations in the resource area. The disposal 
parcels are interspersed throughout the resource 
area and overlay portions of 24 allotments and 
could impact many permittees that are associat- 
ed with the permits. This number varies 
because some permittees hold permits to more 
than one allotment, and some allotments have 
up to seven permittees. Disposing of the identi- 
fied lands could decrease available livestock for- 
age by approximately 900 AUMs (3 percent of 
the total AUMs permitted in the resource area); 
however, not all of the affiliated allotment per- 
mits/permittees would be impacted by this loss. 
Some of the land disposals would only impact 
very small portions of some allotments, and the 
operation may not be affected at all if AUM 
reduction is not significant. Until a specific 
exchange has been proposed, the number of 
AUMs that could be lost or the impact to specif- 
ic permittees cannot be identified. It is not 
expected that large, economically viable ranch- 
ing operations would be significantly impacted 



by the land exchanges, particularly in the west- 
ern part of the resource area or in special man- 
agement areas where land retention policies 
are applied. Smaller operations near the urban 
interface could be impacted the most, inasmuch 
as key waters, access routes, and small public 
land pastures could be lost in a single exchange. 
BLM would work with permittees and exchange 
proponents to resolve such conflicts, to the 
extent possible, during the exchange 
negotiations. 

The desert tortoise HCP called for the elimina- 
tion of grazing privileges in portions of the 
Reserve where operators were willing to relin- 
quish their permits. This would impact four 
allotments (Alger Hollow, Washington, Yellow 
Knolls, and Red Cliffs) and eliminate 1,333 
AUMs from public land grazing. Washington 
County would compensate the permittees, and 
BLM would permanently retire those permits for 
the protection of desert tortoise habitat. 
Voluntary relinquishments of other grazing per- 
mits within the HCP Reserve could further 
decrease AUM availability for public grazing 
purposes. Private and state lands that would be 
acquired within the HCP Reserve would be 
closed to grazing and no permits would be 
issued in this area. Grazing permits still exist 
within Zone 4 of the HCP Reserve and encom- 
pass 137 AUMs. Grazing remains an allowable 
activity within this zone of the HCP Reserve as 
long as current permits are held in force. 

Under the Proposed Plan, the majority of desert 
tortoise critical habitat within the Beaver Dam 
Slope ACEC area would have spring grazing 
deferred. In accordance with an earlier biologi- 
cal opinion by the FWS, removal and deferment 
of spring grazing in portions of three allotments, 
which include Castle Cliffs, Beaver Dam Slope, 
and Scarecrow Peak, would benefit desert tor- 
toises by eliminating competition for spring for- 
age. Livestock use within the restricted grazing 
portion of the ACEC would allow grazing each 
year, but only during the tortoise inactive period 
generally determined to be from November 1 to 
March 15. There would be no authorized live- 
stock use from March 1 6 to October 31 each 
year. This would have impacts on the 13 per- 
mittees associated with the three allotments. 
The same number of AUMs would continue to 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.33 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



be permitted; however, impacts to the permit- 
tees are dependent on the flexibility of their 
operations. Although the restrictions could 
impose financial impacts and some inconve- 
niences, discussions with the affected operators 
indicate that they would have adequate lands 
outside the ACEC to maintain their operations 
through the spring season. 

There are also approximately 13,803 acres with- 
in the ACEC comprising three special manage- 
ment areas recommended by the Utah DWR 
and BLM which place emphasis on nontortoise 
issues and would not require any livestock 
restrictions (see Map 2.9). Although portions of 
the special management areas contain critical 
desert tortoise habitat, coordinated efforts with 
federal and state governments have determined 
that spring grazing does require deferment in 
these special management areas. Livestock use 
within the nonrestricted areas would be in 
accordance with the three applicable allotment 
management plans (AMPs) for Scarecrow Peak, 
Beaver Dam Wash, and Castle Cliffs allotments. 
The season of use for the three listed allotments 
is from November 1 to May 31 . In general, the 
AMPs prescribe rotational grazing between pas- 
tures which would provide periodic rest to areas 
outside the grazing restriction zone. The nonre- 
stricted areas within the ACEC, which contain 
low densities or no tortoises, represent only a 
small portion of larger pastures and as such 
would be managed the same as the other lands 
within those pastures. 

Immediately to the north of the Beaver Dam 
Slope ACEC, approximately 1 5,060 acres of crit- 
ical habitat would remain open for spring graz- 
ing use for those portions of the Scarecrow Peak 
and Jackson Wash Allotments in accordance 
with the AMPs for the allotments. Studies have 
determined that this area contains very low den- 
sities of tortoises. Cattle use in this area is from 
November 16 to May 20 and rotational grazing 
occurs between pastures. Allowing spring graz- 
ing within this area would continue interspecies 
competition for food during the tortoise active 
season. The potential for trampling would also 
increase as grazing occurs during the active sea- 
son. Actual impacts are expected to be low 
because of the low densities and lower quality 
of habitat. As a result of communications from 
the FWS, BLM would expect that once the HCP 



Reserve and Beaver Dam Slope ACEC are in 
place, any designated critical habitat for the tor- 
toise outside of those special management areas 
would be withdrawn. (Robert Williams, person- 
al communication and letter of July 21, 1997). 

Construction activities associated with any two 
of the six potential reservoirs sites could disturb, 
through inundation and associated construction 
activities and/or recreational development, up to 
an estimated 500 acres at Warner Valley (the 
largest proposed dam site). A second smaller 
reservoir site could disturb up to another 250 
acres. The reservoirs could be located on any of 
the following allotments: Mountain Dell/Dry 
Creek, Warner Valley/Fort Pearce, and LaVerkin 
Creek. This could reduce livestock forage by up 
to 50 AUMs or more depending on the vegeta- 
tion condition of the sites. Placement of a 
reservoir on these allotments could further influ- 
ence impacts to the permittees. In addition, 
potential increased visitor use associated with 
the reservoirs could disturb livestock and cause 
a greater chance of public and livestock interac- 
tions or conflicts. 

Grazing allotments and permittees would con- 
tinue to incur growing impacts from extensive 
recreational activities throughout the resource 
area. Off-highway vehicle use is of primary 
concern to permittees. These vehicles allow for 
access to areas that are often remote and could 
generate problems with grazing management 
when gates are not closed after use, essential 
forage is crushed, riparian systems are impaired, 
as well as other concerns. Often, heightened 
recreation use can increase the chances for van- 
dalism to range projects and disturbance to live- 
stock. In addition, dispersed camping along 
sought after riparian/riverine systems, along with 
OHV use, can cause riparian damage that is 
often blamed solely on livestock grazing. The 
Proposed Plan has limited or closed OHV use in 
riparian areas to help rectify this problem. 

Overall, changes to livestock operations as a 
result of land adjustments, special habitat areas, 
and implementation of management constraints 
could adversely affect grazing operations within 
the resource area. Up to 900 AUMs could be lost 
as a result of land exchanges outside of the HCP 
Reserve, and up to 1,333 AUMs would be elimi- 
nated within the HCP Reserve. Additional 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.34 



CHAP T E R 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



impacts could occur as a result of permittee 
adaption to the changes on the Beaver Dam 
Slope. Projected monitoring and protection of 
sensitive resources could change allotment proto- 
cols and further reduce AUMs. Such changes 
could result in the added cost of livestock admin- 
istration for both the permittee and the BLM. 
Additional AUMs could be lost if small portions 
of allotments become unmanageable after land 
exchanges are completed or if up to two reser- 
voirs are constructed on the potential sites. 

Impacts on Recreation 

This Proposed Plan would allow BLM to partial- 
ly accommodate the trend of increased visita- 
tion and recreational use of public land. 
However, recreational use would be restricted, 
where necessary, to protect other resources. 
Developed recreation sites on state and federal 
lands are frequently at or above peak capacity 
during the year. As a result, public lands are 
increasingly used to accommodate recreationists 
turned away at the limited number of developed 
facilities, or who wish to enjoy an unregulated, 
dispersed experience. As growth increases, 
user/resource conflicts would continue to esca- 
late. In the future, collaborative partnerships 
would guide the development of recreation 
plans, recreation opportunities, maintenance of 
facilities, as well as development of new facili- 
ties. Partnerships could assist BLM in reducing 
potential conflicts between various recreational 
groups, other established uses, and private land 
owners. Public education efforts would help 
reduce unacceptable impacts to important at 
risk resources, including wildlife habitat, ripari- 
an areas, fragile soils, water quality, cultural 
resources, wilderness values, and threatened 
and endangered species. Prospective fee collec- 
tion for the enjoyment of public lands could be 
used to help maintain public facilities. 

Generally, most lands within the resource areas 
would remain open to most forms of outdoor 
recreation. Limitations placed on off-highway 
vehicle use are discussed later in the section. 
Impacts on Off-Highway Vehicle Management. 

Lands within the resource area would generally 
remain open to mountain bike use. There are 
91 ,704 acres that would be closed to use to 
protect sensitive resources. Two of these areas, 
the Fort Pearce Wash Historical Site and the 



Dinosaur Trackway are areas that currently 
receive some mountain bike use, although they 
are not popular areas for riding. The Red Bluff 
Proposed ACEC is a popular riding area outside 
of St. George. This area would allow riding on 
one designated bike trail, thus limiting the cur- 
rent riding capacity in that area. Sensitive areas 
surrounding St. George and outlying communi- 
ties would be restricted or closed to mountain 
bike riding, and riders would have to relocate to 
other nonrestrictive areas. All areas that have 
been specifically identified as limited to desig- 
nated roads and trails for OHV use would also 
apply to mountain bikes. This would encom- 
pass n 2,285 acres. BLM would work with user 
groups and interested agencies to sanction, 
improve, or relocate existing trails, and to devel- 
op new trails to meet user needs and provide 
safe and environmentally sound riding opportu- 
nities. Up to 60 miles of such trails could be 
developed over the life of this Plan on public 
lands in Washington County. 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas 
(ERMAs) 

As part of this Proposed Plan, BLM recognizes 
that approximately 501,630 acres of public land 
would be categorized as ERMAs. Recreational 
opportunities here would typically be extensive, 
unstructured, and unregulated in character. 

Recreation use in the ERMAs would be 
enhanced through the maintenance of estab- 
lished campgrounds, development and designa- 
tion of hiking, biking, and equestrian trails, and 
trailheads, rock climbing areas, and interpretive 
facilities with improved access. In addition, 
potential reservoir development could enhance 
associated water-based recreation. Construction 
of new trails or maintenance of existing trails 
would expand hiking and horseback riding 
opportunities as well as increase visitor use in 
the areas being considered for new develop- 
ment. For example, collaborative partnerships 
would assist in the creation of the 48-mile-long 
multiuse trail system and greenway along river 
corridors between Zion National Park to 
Gunlock Reservoir, and would enhance visitors' 
recreational experiences and opportunities with- 
in Washington County. 

Closing the public lands to camping within up 
to 1 mile of Red Cliffs and Baker Dams 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.35 



CHAPTER 3 • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



Recreation Areas would restrict group and fami- 
ly camping on approximately 420 acres of pub- 
lic lands. Campers would either have to camp 
in established campgrounds or would have to 
travel to dispersed areas outside of the radius. 
Overall, this restriction would enhance the 
recreational experience for fee-paying campers 
as there would be a decrease in noise and activ- 
ities at night, as well as less degradation of 
resources adjacent to campground facilities. 
This action could also help alleviate trespass 
problems stemming from public camping on 
private land around the Baker Dam recreation 
site. In the dispersed areas, this action would 
enhance the visitor's visual experience, reduce 
crowding and litter, and prevent sanitation prob- 
lems from high levels of human waste. 

Although Red Cliffs and Baker Dam 
Campgrounds would not be closed to OHV use, 
OHVs would be limited to designated roads and 
trails. Noise pollution and dust created by 
OHVs within these established sites would be 
reduced. 

Potential future land acquisitions on numerous 
identified parcels could increase land base in 
riparian/riverine areas along the following rivers, 
washes or creeks: Virgin, Santa Clara, Beaver 
Dam, Kolob, Crystal, Deep, North Fork, and La 
Verkin. The parcels would include up to 4,000 
acres of land that are, in part, associated with 
riparian values. Many of these tracts of land 
would consolidate and increase the BLM land 
base in primitive recreational opportunity spec- 
trum (ROS) areas. The addition of these lands 
would increase and open up opportunities for 
primitive and water-based recreational experi- 
ences on public lands. 

BLM would seek to acquire easements, identi- 
fied in the Lands section of the Plan, that could 
substantially improve public access for recre- 
ational purposes as well as increase visitation in 
areas that are not presently accessible to the 
public. Some of the identified easements would 
increase visitor use to the Virgin River for scenic 
and recreational experiences, as well as create 
access to areas currently closed by surrounding 
private lands for hiking, camping, hunting, sight- 
seeing, and other recreational uses. 

Locatable mineral exploration and development 
would not significantly impact the recreation 



program because the areas with high potential 
for production of minerals are not within major 
destination or camping sites and there would 
only be a small amount of disturbance over the 
life of the Plan. The proposed withdrawal of 
1,1 78 acres at Red Cliffs Recreation Area and 
270 acres at Baker Dam Recreation Area would 
maintain and protect these areas and their sur- 
rounding values from potential surface and sub- 
surface disturbance related to mining. 

The potential construction and operation of two 
new reservoirs could cause a shift from riverine- 
based recreational activities to reservoir-based 
recreation activities in the areas chosen for the 
reservoir sites. Overall, there would be an 
increase in water-based and affiliated recreation. 
Increase in visitation would depend on manage- 
ment criteria set by the state or county for the 
reservoirs. Further recreation impacts from 
reservoir development are unknown at this time, 
and would require additional site-specific analy- 
sis when applications for development are sub- 
mitted to BLM. New reservoirs could create a 
moderate increase in user days if the reservoir 
sites are developed for recreation use. 

The restriction on camping from October 15 to 
November 15 within 0.25 miles of 12 springs, 
all water catchments, and all Utah DWR guz- 
zlers west of the Santa Clara River would restrict 
hunters and their hunting parties from camping 
on these highly used areas. Many of these 
campsites have been used year after year by the 
same hunting parties who would be displaced 
to other areas away from wildlife water sources. 

Livestock grazing would continue to create con- 
flicts with some recreationists by diminishing 
the recreational experiences in certain locations, 
primarily riparian areas. BLM would strive to 
take necessary actions to reduce conflicts 
between grazing and other resource uses and 
values where the need exists. 

Development and implementation of an activity 
level management plan for Bloomington Cave 
would serve to control the unchecked recre- 
ational impacts of this unique resource and pro- 
tect the cave from further degradation. Potential 
restrictions would be placed on public use of 
the cave to ensure the long-term preservation of 
the cave and its resources. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.36 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



Organized groups of more than 75 people using 
public land in the ERMAs for camping and other 
purposes would be required to obtain a letter of 
authorization from the resource area and pro- 
vide their own sanitary facilities. This stipula- 
tion would reduce litter and sanitation prob- 
lems, and provide user information for the BLM 
recreation program. It would also provide BLM 
an opportunity to reduce overcrowding and pre- 
vent group conflicts in popular, unregulated 
areas. 

A 0.5 mile buffer zone along the Smithsonian 
Butte Back Country Byway would protect sight- 
seeing opportunities for visitors; however, it 
would also restrict camping in an area that is 
largely used as an overflow for Zion National 
Park visitors. Camping restrictions would 
reduce litter and prevent sanitation problems 
along the Byway. 

The construction of a Zion National Park 
entrance station and possible ranger residence 
near North Creek would facilitate management 
of Zion National Park by enhancement of visitor 
contact, easier availability of park permits, and 
dissemination of information by the National 
Park Service and BLM. Through this information 
system, present conflicts with private land own- 
ers in the Kolob area could be decreased. A 
new entrance station would increase fee collec- 
tion revenues for the Park. 

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) 

As part of the Proposed Plan, BLM recognized 
that approximately 127,375 acres, containing 
five areas, would be managed as SRMAs. 
Recreation opportunities in these areas would 
be managed more intensively to protect the nat- 
ural values and unique resources associated 
with these areas. (See Map 2.12) 

7. Sand Mountain SRMA: 

The main attractions to this SRMA would be the 
proposed Sand Hollow Reservoir (now on adja- 
cent private lands), the Dinosaur Trackway, Fort 
Pearce historic ruins, and off-highway vehicle 
riding on the red sand dunes. Management of 
this area could be guided through partnership 
efforts and cooperative management with the 
Utah State Parks and Recreation, the WCWCD, 



and private landowners. New OHV staging 
areas, parking areas, information displays, and 
visitor facilities could accommodate and 
enhance the increased recreational and OHV 
use in this area. 

Competitive OHV events in this SRMA would 
continue to be authorized on a yearly basis. In 
order to minimize cumulative impacts to water- 
shed values, these events could be rotated 
among other established courses in this area. 
This could include connective trails with 
Arizona, and could provide for recognized OHV 
loop systems between both states. Competitive 
events would be limited by the number of per- 
sonnel and other help available to monitor and 
administer such events. 

Also within the SRMA, collaborative manage- 
ment would be used to identify, develop, and 
maintain up to 50 miles of equestrian trails near 
Sand Mountain. Organized events on these 
trails would be managed to avoid conflicts with 
sensitive resources and off-highway vehicle use. 
Trails of this nature would help satisfy the grow- 
ing demand for equestrian facilities in the 
resource area. 

Closing the public lands to camping within a 1- 
mile radius of the Dinosaur Trackway and Fort 
Pearce would force people to travel to dispersed 
areas outside of the radius. This would reduce 
camper density in those areas, thus enhancing 
the visitor's visual experience, reducing litter, 
and preventing sanitation problems. Both of 
these 40-acre sites would also be closed to off- 
highway vehicle use. 

In addition, proposed withdrawals from beat- 
able mineral development within the Warner 
Ridge/Fort Pearce ACEC and Dinosaur Trackway 
would protect these areas from any mining 
development in the future, thereby protecting 
the integrity of the overall recreational experi- 
ence in these popular areas. 

Some identified land disposals would conflict 
with popular off-highway vehicle recreation 
uses in this SRMA. Disposal of the 3,000 acre 
Sand Hollow Reservoir site and numerous other 
parcels consisting of an additional 2,500 acres 
in the northern part of this SRMA would conflict 
with current intensive off-highway vehicle use in 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.37 



CHAPTER 3 ' ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



this area, and would conflict with some of the 
goals and objectives of this SRMA. The majori- 
ty of these parcels, when disposed of, would go 
into private ownership and could be closed to 
public use. This could cause an increase in pri- 
vate land conflicts and create user displacement 
and dissatisfaction. 

As a result of land exchanges in the SRMA, a 
yearly special recreation permit for a motorcycle 
trials event would be inundated with water and 
no longer permitted in this area. BLM has 
worked with the event organizer to look for 
other suitable sites for this event. 

2. Red Mountain/Santa Clara SRMA: 

The main attractions in this area include Red 
Mountain, outstanding geological and scenic 
features, the Santa Clara River, and cultural 
resources. Partnership efforts to improve and 
maintain the trailhead and hiking trail for Red 
Mountain would accommodate the growing 
user demand in this area. A 60-mile equestrian 
trail managed to avoid impacts to sensitive 
resources would also accommodate increased 
used demand in this area. 

In a cooperative effort with the Snow Canyon 
State Park, BLM could expand recreation oppor- 
tunities of public lands adjacent to the state 
lands. The agreement could allow for new trails 
for hiking, biking, and equestrian use, establish 
rock climbing areas and concessionaire ser- 
vices, and would allow for consistent manage- 
ment across jurisdictional boundaries. 

Commercial groups would be limited to 12 per- 
sons per trip in this SRMA with no more than 
three commercial permittees using an area at 
one time. This constraint would reduce the 
potential for large commercial operations, but 
would increase the quality of recreational 
opportunities for the general public by reducing 
overcrowding and congestion. In addition, 
organized groups of more than 75 persons 
would be required to obtain a letter of autho- 
rization from the BLM as well as to provide their 
own sanitary facilities. This stipulation would 
reduce litter and prevent sanitation problems. 

The placement of riparian barriers along the 
Santa Clara River would reduce the number of 



campers allowed in this favored area. The area 
below Gunlock Reservoir along the Santa Clara 
River has been a popular camping and fishing 
area for many years. Reducing the number of 
sites for camping through barrier placement 
would create negative public attitudes for the 
short term; however, it would enhance the 
recreational experiences of the areas in the long 
term through the reduction of sanitation prob- 
lems, increased public safety, and better riparian 
management. Riparian vegetation would be 
allowed reprieve from heavy traffic and should 
reestablish itself, allowing for an improved ripar- 
ian camping experience when opened for 
camping on a rotating basis. Since camping 
would be allowed in some areas along this 
stretch on a rotational basis, some visitors 
would have to find other places to camp when 
the designated camping area is full. Logically, 
they could go to developed campgrounds at 
Gunlock Reservoir, Baker Dam Reservoir, or to 
dispersed areas outside of the restricted riparian 
zone. 

3. Deep Creek SRMA: 

The main attractions in this area are scenic vis- 
tas, landforms, and deep canyons associated 
with Zion National Park and its vicinity. 

BLM could acquire an easement that would 
substantially improve public access for recre- 
ational purposes as well as increase visitation in 
the Deep Creek area that is not presently acces- 
sible to the public. The Deep Creek easement 
would provide access to 1 2,000 acres of public 
lands that have been essentially closed by sur- 
rounding private lands. The public would be 
able to use this area for hiking, camping, hunt- 
ing, sightseeing, and entrance to the Virgin River 
Narrows in Zion National Park. 

Coordinated efforts with Zion National Park 
would help BLM manage visitor activities with 
an emphasis placed on maintaining natural val- 
ues and ensuring consistency with the Park's 
General Management Plan. Continued involve- 
ment with the Park's planning process could 
involve further Wild and Scenic River suitability 
determinations on segments of public land and 
rivers contiguous to the Park boundary. (See 
Special Emphasis Areas: Wild and Scenic Rivers 
section.) 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.38 



CHAPTER 3 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



4. LaVerldn Creek/Black Ridge SRMA: 

The main attractions in this area are scenic vis- 
tas and landforms, and LaVerkin Creek water- 
falls, river, and canyon. Construction of a trail 
and overlook at Black Ridge would enhance vis- 
itor experience and create an opportunity to dis- 
perse visitor information. BLM could seek a 
collaborate partnership to develop a primitive 
day-use area on 20 acres near LaVerkin Falls to 
reduce trash, undesirable uses, and public safety 
problems, thereby enhancing public enjoyment 
at this area. 

Commercial recreation use in this SRMA would 
become more restrictive by applying limitations 
to commercial groups. Twelve persons per trip 
with no more than three commercial permittees 
using an area at one time would be allowed 
within this area. This constraint would reduce 
the potential for large commercial operations, 
but would increase the quality of recreational 
opportunities for the general public by reducing 
overcrowding and congestion. 

5. Canaan Mountain SRMA: 

The main attractions in this area are Canaan 
Mountain and associated landforms as well as 
outstanding scenery. Trailheads and trails 
throughout this popular area would be main- 
tained for the enjoyment of primitive back coun- 
try users. 

Commercial recreation use within this SRMA 
would become more restrictive. Commercial 
groups would be limited to 12 persons per trip 
with no more than three commercial permittees 
using an area at one time. This constraint 
would reduce the potential for large commercial 
operations, but would increase the quality of 
recreational opportunities for the general public 
by reducing overcrowding and congestion and 
reducing human impacts on the primitive values 
of the area. 

The entire SRMA would be closed to mountain 
biking and OfHV use, mineral materials sales, 
fuelwood sales, and would require no surface 
occupancy for fluid mineral leasing. These pre- 
scriptions would preserve the primitive charac- 
ter and natural values and enhance and main- 
tain the primitive recreational opportunities and 
experiences in this area. 



Impacts on Off-highway 

Vehicle Mangagement 

In addition to the limited off-highway vehicle 
(OHV) analysis contained under the Recreation 
section, the following impacts could also occur. 

Given the extensive growth in Washington 
County, OHV issues remain challenging. Based 
on the need to protect sensitive resources, as 
well as to provide for continued used of public 
lands by OHVs, the Proposed Plan establishes 
use areas and consistent guidelines for OHVs. 
BLM recognizes that OHV use on public lands 
in Washington County benefits local economies. 
In general, public lands in the resource areas 
would remain open for use on existing roads 
and trails. Several special management areas 
and watersheds would remain open for use on 
designated roads and trails only. Some public 
lands west of Veyo, at Sand Mountain, and adja- 
cent to state lands west of Bloomington would 
remain open without limitation. Specific areas 
detailed on Map 2.13, would be closed to all 
OHV travel to protect sensitive resources within 
the resource area. 

Given limited staff and budget, BLM's ability to 
provide for this increasingly popular activity 
could remain limited without the use of collabo- 
rative management and partnerships. The pres- 
ence of unique, rare, and sensitive resources in 
the county would serve to continue to limit 
BLM'S ability to allow unrestricted, unregulated 
OHV use. There would be a decrease in con- 
flicts on private lands from OHV use in commu- 
nities because users would be confined to exist- 
ing roads and trails. Competitive races requiring 
Special Use Permits could become more 
restricted as a result of OHV use designations. 

As communities in Washington County continue 
to grow and expand, OHV use is anticipated to 
follow suit. The majority of OHV users ride on 
existing roads and trails within the resource area 
except in those places where the soils, vegetation, 
and geology of the area makes it easy to "play" 
without impediments. Such places generally have 
low-growing vegetation, gentle to angled slopes, 
gypsiferous/hazardous soils, are close to populat- 
ed areas, and are easily accessible. 

OHV use in the open area west of Veyo (58,335 
acres) is not anticipated to generate new 



mXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL E N V I R O N M E N TA I, IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.39 



C H AFTER 



» ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



impacts to the landscape due to its isolated 
location, limitations created by the vegetation 
types, and geologic outlay of the land. Thorny 
blackbrush, cactus, pinyon-juniper forests, and 
sagebrush/upland shrubs dominate this area. 
Most off-highway vehicle use would continue to 
remain on existing roads and trails in order to 
avoid these vegetation deterrents. In addition, 
steep slopes and rocky terrain would also con- 
fine most motorized vehicles to existing roads 
and trails in the area. Ripple Arch and its asso- 
ciated geologic features are situated in the mid- 
dle of this open area. The red sandstone arch 
area is protected by a "closed" designation so 
that visible scarring and impacts to this impor- 
tant scenic/recreational resource are not creat- 
ed. Signing would be placed around the 
perimeter of this area to let OHV users know 
that this is a closed area. 

The OHV open area west of Bloomington (430 
acres) would continue to show existing and new 
scarring on the land. Currently, OHV use in this 
area is heavy due to the proximity of populated 
neighborhoods, hilly terrain, and limited, low- 
growing vegetation. All make this an ideal play 
area for local residents. However, some resi- 
dents are offended by the proximity of these 
activities to residential areas and their direct 
impacts which cause excessive noise, dust prob- 
lems, and visual scarring. This area is bordered 
on the north by the main road into the area and 
the fenced-off Red Bluff ACEC, to the east by 
state lands currently receiving heavy OHV use, 
to the south by a steep cliff bordering the Virgin 
River and part of the Lower Virgin River ACEC, 
and to the east by public lands identified as 
being limited to existing roads and trails. 
Monitoring of this area is critical in order to 
ensure that OHVs remain within the area desig- 
nated as open, or on existing roads and trails. 
Past problems with fence cutting into the Red 
Bluff ACEC has created OHV impacts to the 
dwarf bear-claw poppy and its habitat through 
crushing of plants and compaction of soils. 

The open area at Sand Hollow/Sand Mountain 
(34,475 acres) would continue to attract OHV 
users as a play area due to the massive red sand 
dunes that define this locality. Proposed con- 
struction of the Sand Hollow Reservoir and 
associated campground and parking facilities 



would complement this OHV open area. OHV 
riding on the sand dunes is a favorite activity 
and leaves little residual impact on the land- 
scape. Windstorms usually cover any trails left 
by OHV users, and the sand is easy to ride on 
due to the lack of vegetation, rocks, and other 
obstacles. The majority of land below Sand 
Mountain would also be left open for OHV use. 
Hilly terrain and low-growing vegetation make 
this a suitable place for OHV riding. Hillside 
scarring and a proliferation of trails would 
amplify and be visible from dirt roads that pass 
through the area and are used by ranchers, 
sightseeing visitors, and local community travel. 
Located within the area designated as open is 
the Dinosaur Trackway 40-acre OHV closed 
area. This area remains closed to OHV use to 
protect the paleontological resources associated 
with the dinosaur tracks. Careful monitoring of 
this area is required to ensure that OHV use is 
not impacting this resource. Signing would be 
placed around this parcel to ensure that the 
public is aware of the closed designation. If 
monitoring shows that signing is not enough to 
protect the resource, fencing the area may be an 
option. 

BLM would work with user groups and interest- 
ed agencies to identify, designate, and manage 
loop trails for user enjoyment. Most of these 
would utilize existing roads and trails and tie 
into existing systems on the Dixie National 
Forest and the Arizona Strip. In collaboration 
with users and interested organizations, up to 
50 miles of new trails could be developed for 
different categories of vehicles to meet user 
demands in environmentally preferred areas. 

Protection of primitive recreation areas, which 
are those areas generally lacking existing roads 
and trails, would require closure to use by 
OHVs to maintain the integrity of those areas. 
Closures encompass 91,704 acres of the 
resource area, or 15 percent of the public land 
base. Most areas are remote and isolated from 
urban centers with the exception of Red 
Mountain and Canaan Mountain. These two 
closed areas, located near St. George and 
Hildale, continue to have problems with off- 
highway vehicle trespass, and would require 
elevated protection measures to stop the tres- 
pass problems. Given the limited BLM staff and 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.40 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



budget, partnership efforts with local communi- 
ties or private groups would be necessary to 
help solve these challenges. 

Overall, it is expected that the current and 
future needs for OHV use in the resource area 
would only be partially met with these designa- 
tions. Other agencies and recreation providers 
would need to fill in gaps such as competitive 
track areas close to the urban centers. The 
majority of OHV users, however, would contin- 
ue to use and enjoy public land access through- 
out most of Washington County. 

Impacts on Scenic Quality 

BLM's objectives for visual resource manage- 
ment (VRM) would be to maintain and preserve 
the most important public land scenic vistas 
within the resource area. This would be accom- 
plished by assigning visual management classes 
based on the quality of the visual resources. 
These areas are summarized as follows: a) VRM 
Class I objectives would be applied within the 
Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness Area, the 
Red Mountain ACEC, and the Canaan Mountain 
ACEC. The Class 1 objectives have been applied 
in these areas because they are considered to be 
some of the highest quality scenic areas within 
the county and no changes to the scenic quality 
of the areas should be allowed; b) VRM Class II 
objectives are given to other high quality areas 
where visual intrusions should be subordinate to 
the landscape. Some of these areas include the 
public lands above Zion National Park, lands on 
top of Red Mountain, the cliff faces of Sand 
Mountain, Little Creek Mountain, Hurricane 
Cliffs, lands within a Recreation Opportunity 
Spectrum primitive setting, and public lands 
generally within the viewshed of state scenic 
Highway 9 into Zion National Park, as well as 
the public lands north of Highway 9; c) VRM 
Class III objectives would apply to the west side 
of the resource area, most proposed and desig- 
nated corridors, vegetation treatment areas, 
communication sites, and other areas shown on 
Map 2.14; and d) Class IV objectives would 
apply primarily to the southernmost areas con- 
tiguous with the Arizona border on the eastern 
portion of the resource area, around the Sand 
Mountain OHV area, and in the Apple Valley 
area. 



There are six planned or anticipated actions that 
have the potential to impact scenic quality in 
the resource area. These actions include land 
disposal, corridor and right-of-way placement, 
beatable mineral exploration or development, 
reservoir development, vegetation treatments, 
and OHV use. 

Up to 18,000 acres are proposed for disposal. 
A majority of the disposal land is around devel- 
oped communities near St. George, Hurricane, 
and other developing communities within the 
resource area. It is anticipated that the majority 
of development would occur in compliance 
with the existing city and county planning and 
zoning ordinances; thus, the developments 
expected would be in keeping with the existing 
character of community zoning and expansion. 
In other words, future development on a dispos- 
al adjacent to a residential area would result in 
development comparable with the residential 
nature of the area. Likewise, industrial develop- 
ment would occur in or near areas of similar- 
type developments. This does not infer that the 
development would not be intrusive within the 
landscape, only that it wold be in keeping with 
the existing visual intrusions already occurring 
in the area. Significant growth is still expected 
to occur throughout the county well into the 
future, and such growth would continue to 
cause visual intrusions in the existing natural 
landscape, changing line, form, texture, and 
color. 

Numerous isolated parcels are proposed for dis- 
posal and if developed, could contrast with the 
landscape and would most likely be noticeable 
especially along 1-1 5 where millions of visitors 
travel through the area each year. Existing alter- 
ations in the scenic quality exist along this 
route, primarily in the form of dispersed resi- 
dences or farm/ranch-related buildings. This 
Proposed Plan recognizes the extreme impor- 
tance of the scenic values along 1-1 5 and 
Highway 9 and the viewsheds from ihese routes. 
In particular. Highway 9 has been established as 
a State Scenic Highway from LaVerkin into Zion 
National Park, and this corridor is considered 
integral to the scenic vista of this Park. 
Generally, all lands within this area would be 
retained in public ownership to protect the visu- 
al integrity of this area. Exceptions could be 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.41 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



made where it is determined that a transfer of a 
specific tract would be in the public interest and 
serve essential municipal purposes. This area 
has been established as a VRM Class II objective 
zone, where development should not substan- 
tially detract from the scenic quality of the area. 
The proposed land transfer of 240 acres near the 
town of Virgin is screened from Highway 9 and 
development of these parcels should not detract 
from the viewshed as a whole. Although a utili- 
ty corridor is being designated along this route, 
new rights-of-way within this corridor would 
require careful mitigation to ensure the scenic 
integrity of the area. The rights-of-way would be 
required to reduce or eliminate undesirable 
impacts to the quality of the visual resource. 

Scenic quality could be partially disrupted by 
the development of rights-of-way within the 
resource area. The 31 1,579 acres of rights-of- 
way avoidance and exclusion areas within the 
resource area include all VRM Class 1 and Class 
II areas. In the avoidance areas, rights-of-way 
would only be allowed when no other alterna- 
tive for placement of that action is practical. 
Any new transmission lines would cause man- 
made contrast and be out of character in or near 
visually sensitive areas such as major travel 
routes, primary highway crossings, high-quality 
scenic areas, communities, or in areas with 
recreational values. Where proposed transmis- 
sion lines would parallel existing lines, addition- 
al contrast would generally not add appreciably 
to the present contrast, but would make distur- 
bance more obvious. There would also be 
localized increases in contrast from small scale 
utilities. Three proposed utility corridors partial- 
ly overlap high scenic quality areas and could 
pose significant contrast to the existing sur- 
roundings. These corridors are along 1-15 
extending into the Black Ridge area, the corri- 
dor north of Highway 9 into Springdale, and 
the proposed corridor from Hurricane south to 
the Arizona border. This route would follow 
an existing county road along the base of the 
Hurricane Cliffs and utility lines should be 
placed on the west side of the road to eliminate 
contrast with the cliffs. New developmenl in 
these corridors would require effective 
mitigation. 

High iocatable mineral potential areas fall with- 
in VRM Class 111 areas where activities may 



attract attention but should not dominate the 
view of the casual observer, and changes should 
repeat the basic elements found in the predomi- 
nant natural features of the landscape. Mining 
development could exceed that visual objective 
for this VRM Class. 

Vegetation treatment areas in the resource area 
have already been disturbed in the past. 
Maintaining these areas could introduce more 
distinct contrast with the surrounding area in the 
short term; however, many of them are not visi- 
ble from viewshed areas such as major travel 
routes, primary highway crossings, high-quality 
scenic areas, communities, or in areas with high 
recreational values. New vegetation treatments 
could be considered in order to implement 
Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health. The 
visual contrast of these projects would be 
analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine 
if such contrasts would meet the VRM class 
objectives. 

The potential reservoir sites identified in the 
Proposed Plan would change the line, form, 
color, and texture of these areas no matter 
where they are placed within the resource area. 
All of the proposed sites would exceed the VRM 
Class objectives for the areas that they fall with- 
in. A potential reservoir site at Dry Creek would 
contrast strongly with the high-scenic quality in 
the surrounding area; however, this potential 
reservoir is in an area that is not visually sensi- 
tive. However, both the lower LaVerkin Creek 
site and the Dry Creek site would be within a 
VRM Class II area and exceed the management 
objective for visual resources in this area. The 
other four potential reservoir sites are in moder- 
ate scenic quality areas where some contrast 
would be evident. Of these moderate scenic 
quality sites, Anderson Junction Reservoir, if 
developed, would be the most visibly sensitive 
along 1-15. The Anderson Junction site. 
Grapevine Wash site, Leeds Creek site, and 
Warner Valley site would all fall under Class III 
management objectives, where changes to the 
viewshed should not dominate the view of the 
casual observer. Despite changes in contrast 
and other features, many people would find 
properly designed reservoirs to be visually 
appealing. 

Although a majority of the OHV closed areas 
overlap high-scenic quality zones, some high- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.42 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



scenic quality areas still remain open to limited 
OHV use. Proliferation of additional intrusions 
are not anticipated within these areas. Areas 
also remain open to limited use in areas near 
communities where scenic quality has already 
been altered. The open area adjacent to high- 
density residential areas would continue to cre- 
ate visual impacts potentially troubling to many 
of those residents. Any new trails or heavy use 
of these vehicles would contrast, create a 
noticeable intrusion, and detract from the quali- 
ty of scenery in certain areas; however, most of 
the heavy use is in low scenic quality and low 
sensitivity areas. Scarring would remain evident 
and create visual intrusions. 

Impacts on Wilderness Values 

The Proposed Plan addresses how the 1 1 
Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) in the resource 
area would be managed if released from review 
by Congress, it is important to note that until 
such time as Congress acts to designate all or 
part of the 1 1 identified WSAs or releases them 
from further wilderness consideration, BLM is 
required by FLPMA to manage the areas so as 
not to impair their suitability for preservation as 
wilderness, subject to valid existing rights and 
provisions affecting grandfathered mining, graz- 
ing, and mineral leasing operations. BLM policy 
for how such lands are to be managed is 
described in its Interim Management Policy and 
Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review, 
BLM Handbook H 8.5.S0-1 . 

Under the Proposed Plan, the resource area 
could acquire up to 7,000 acres in the vicinity 
of the Cottonwood Canyon, Canaan Mountain, 
Cougar Canyon, Joshua Tree, Red Mountain, 
Red Butte, and Deep Creek. These acquisitions 
could complement values of solitude and natu- 
ralness by establishing control of potentially 
incompatible activities. Acquisition of state 
lands within the Beaver Dam Mountains 
Wilderness Area would also complement the 
wilderness values of the area. 

A proposed utility corridor along the north side 
of the Red Mountain could add new utility 
rights-of-way to the existing power line already 
in place. As this visual intrusion is already 
deterring from the natural quality of the area, 
new rights-of-way would only add to the exist- 
ing visual distractions. However, this corridor is 



outside of the primitive recreation opportunity 
spectrum (ROS) area. Construction and mainte- 
nance of the facilities would cause short-term 
impacts from noise and dust. 

The Cougar Canyon and Joshua Tree areas are 
located within a high-potential mineral area. 
Mineral exploration and development on up to 
800 acres in the resource area would affect soli- 
tude, naturalness, and roadless areas if it 
occurred near or within these areas. Planned 
actions and management prescriptions for the 
Upper Beaver Dam Wash and Beaver Dam 
Slope proposed ACECs would help protect these 
values through the requirement of a plan of 
operation for all surface disturbances. 

The designation of desert tortoise critical habitat 
within and adjacent to the Cottonwood Canyon, 
Red Mountain, and Joshua Tree areas would 
enhance the values of naturalness and solitude 
because of the limitations the designation would 
place on development activities and recreation 
use. Limitation of party size to 12 people 
would serve to retain the solitude quality within 
these areas. In addition, the Cottonwood 
Canyon area, as well as a portion of Red 
Mountain, are within the Washington County 
HCP Reserve. Management of these areas for 
the protection of desert tortoise and other 
species would also help preserve the solitude 
and naturalness values of these areas. 

Areas that have solitude and naturalness values 
primarily overlay areas that have a primitive 
ROS value. All of the areas identified with a 
primitive ROS value would be closed or inac- 
cessible for OHV activities. These areas are also 
rights-of-way avoidance areas and would be 
protected from the impacts of rights-of-way 
development unless there are no other alterna- 
tives for placement of such utility needs. 

Impacts on Special Emphasis Areas 

Under the Proposed Plan, all or portions of five 
of the nine rivers found eligible would be rec- 
ommended as suitable for inclusion into the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and all 
of the proposed ACECs would be designated 
except for the City Creek ACEC, which has been 
incorporated into the Washington County HCP 
Reserve. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ANU FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.43 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



Wild and Scenic Rivers 

In the resource area, nine rivers were consid- 
ered to be eligible for inclusion into the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 
Within the nine rivers considered eligible, five 
river segments or portions thereof, would be 
found suitable for congressional designation, 
and eight segments or portions thereof, would 
be found nonsuitable under the Proposed Plan. 

Suitable Segments: The values that make these 
stream segments eligible for congressional des- 
ignation into the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System would be protected by manage- 
ment prescriptions in this Proposed Plan that 
would limit potential surface disturbance for the 
0.5-mile-wide corridor. The eligibility and suit- 
ability of the segments for potential congression- 
al designation would be maintained. BLM does 
not anticipate any changes to the free-flowing 
values of these rivers to the degree that it would 
affect eligibility/suitability. Except where rights- 
of-way across public lands are required, BLM 
generally has no influence over the develop- 
ment of upstream water rights. 

Deep Creek/Crystal Creek, North Fork Virgin 
River, and Kolob Creek/Oak Creek 

Scenic and recreational opportunities have been 
identified as outstandingly remarkable river- 
related values on all portions of these three 
rivers. In addition, the fishery and hydrologic 
features of Deep Creel</Crystal Creek, and the 
wildlife values of Kolob Creel</Oak Creek have 
been identified as outstandingly remarkable. 
The management prescriptions that would pro- 
tect these values and maintain the tentative wild 
classification of these rivers are as follows: land 
retention, rights-of-way avoidance areas, fluid 
mineral leasing Category 3 (no surface occupan- 
cy), plans of operation required for locatable 
minerals, closed to mineral materials develop- 
ment, closed to fuelwood harvest, closed to 
OHVs and mountain bike use, and management 
under VRM Class II objectives. Although locat- 
able mineral development would not be prohib- 
ited, disturbance to river-related values is 
unlikely due to the low mineral potential of the 
areas and the fact that impact screening and 
mitigation would be required through a plan of 
operation. 



The water rights agreement for Zion National 
Park would allow for some development that 
could result in loss of flows within river seg- 
ments above Zion National Park. Potential flow 
reductions were estimated to be less than 10 
percent. BLM anticipates that future water 
development allowed by the agreement would 
be located on private land above the suitable 
river segments. However, should developments 
be proposed on BLM-managed lands and no 
acceptable alternatives exist, such development 
would be mitigated to be as consistent as possi- 
ble with management objectives of the tentative 
wild classification for these segments. The 
agreement requires that a specific amount of 
water must continue to flow through Zion 
National Park to meet Park requirements and the 
needs of important resources. As a result, BLM 
finds that the flows would be sufficient to main- 
tain the river values on BLM segments above the 
Park. Except where rights-of-way across public 
lands are required, BLM generally has no influ- 
ence over the development of upstream water 
rights. 

LaVerkin Creek/Smith Creek 

Outstandingly remarkable values on these river 
segments include scenic, recreational, riparian, 
and hydrologic features. The management pre- 
scriptions that would protect these values and 
maintain the tentative wild classification of this 
river include: land retention and potential 
acquisition, rights-of-way avoidance area, fluid 
mineral leasing category 3 (no surface occupan- 
cy), plans of operation required for locatable 
minerals, closed to mineral materials develop- 
ment, closed to fuelwood harvest, closed to 
OHVs and mountain bike use, and management 
under VRM Class II objectives. Although locat- 
able mineral development would not be prohib- 
ited, disturbance to river-related values is 
unlikely due to the low mineral potential of the 
area and the fact that impact screening and mit- 
igation would be required through a plan of 
operation. 

LaVerkin Creek originates on private lands 
above Zion National Park, flows through Zion 
National Park, and then enters public land. 
There is a small reservoir used for irrigation pur- 
poses on private land near the source of 
LaVerkin Creek above the Park. The Park is 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.44 



CHAPTER 3 • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



presently studying their segment of this river for 
inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System. Currently, BLM is not aware of 
planned water developments on the private land 
above the Park, on La Verkin Creek, or on Smith 
Creek that could potentially interfere with river- 
related flow values downstream. Except where 
rights-of-way across public lands are required, 
BLM generally has no influence over the devel- 
opment of upstream water rights. 

Virgin River, Segment B, within the Beaver Dam 
Mountains Wilderness Area 

This portion of the Virgin River, Segment B, that 
lies within the Beaver Dam Mountains 
Wilderness Area contains outstandingly remark- 
able values related to fishery and wildlife 
resources, and scenic and recreational opportu- 
nities. Protective management is already in 
place because this portion of the segment is 
within the designated Beaver Dam Mountains 
Wilderness Area. Management prescriptions 
that would protect river values are as follows: 
land retention and potential acquisition, rights- 
of-way exclusion area, closed to fluid mineral 
leasing, withdrawn from locatable mineral 
exploration and development, closed to mineral 
materials development, closed to fuelwood har- 
vest, closed to OHVs and mountain bike use, 
and management under VRM Class I objectives. 

Although water development proposals for use 
of Virgin River water upstream of this segment 
are still possible, flows necessary to protect 
threatened and endangered animal and fish 
species are likely to be maintained through 
application of Endangered Species Act require- 
ments. BLM believes that the water flows nec- 
essary to maintain these species would also pro- 
tect the other river-related values. Except where 
rights-of-way across public lands are required, 
BLM generally has no influence over the devel- 
opment of upstream water rights. 

Non-Suitable Segments: The values that make 
these stream segments eligible for congressional 
designation into the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System would generally be protected by 
management prescriptions in this Proposed Plan 
that would limit potential surface disturbance 
within the river/riparian corridors for the pur- 
pose of protecting important resources. 



In the Proposed Plan, the minimum decisions to 
protect all riparian areas within the resource 
area include the following prescriptions: 

• Maintain or restore riparian areas to prop- 
er functioning condition 

• Protect through Standard Stipulations 
(Appendix 1) or Special Stipulations in 
leases or permits 

• As per Utah BLM riparian policy, no 
major new surface disturbing activity 
within 100 yards of riparian areas (with 
some exceptions) 

• No aerial application of pesticides within 
1 00 feet of riparian areas 

• Livestock salt blocks located away from 
riparian areas 

• Riparian areas generally retained in pub- 
lic ownership 

• OHV use limited to existing roads and 
trails 

• Rights-of-way avoidance areas 

• Closed to fuelwood sales 

• Closed to mineral materials sales 

• No surface occupancy for fluids minerals 

Moody Wash 

The outstandingly remarkable value for which 
this segment is eligible is for the Virgin 
spinedace fishery, in addition to the protective 
riparian measures listed above, the 1995 Virgin 
Spinedace Conservation Agreement and Strategy 
would be implemented to eliminate the need for 
listing of this species. Therefore, BLM antici- 
pates that the fishery values in this stretch of 
river would continue to be maintained or 
improved. Historically, flows in this stretch of 
river have been sufficient enough to foster the 
regionally significant populations of spinedace, 
and it is not anticipated that these flows would 
diminish. Except where rights-of-way across 
public lands are required, BLM generally has no 
influence over the development of upstream 
water rights. 

Fort Pearce Wash 

The outstandingly remarkable values for which 
this segment is eligible are wildlife and histori- 
cal resources. This area is within the Warner 
Ridge/Fort Pearce Wash ACEC and the values 
would be protected and maintained by the man- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.45 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



agement prescriptions outlined for this ACEC 
and the protective riparian measures listed pre- 
viously. The ACEC prescriptions require either a 
v^/ithdrawal of this ACEC from mineral entry, or a 
mining plan of operation for all actions other 
than casual use. Motorized travel and mountain 
bike use would not be allowed within the 40- 
acre historical/riparian site and would be limited 
to designated roads and trails outside of the 40- 
acre parcel. All lands would continue to be 
retained in public ownership. In addition, 
camping would not be allowed within a 1 -mile 
zone of the historical site. 

A major transportation route from Hildale to I- 
15 has been proposed and would transect the 
southern portion of this ACEC. Although no 
specific route has been identified for the 
Southern Corridor Transportation Route, an envi- 
ronmentally preferred route would be defined to 
minimize effects on wildlife and historical and 
other values of the ACEC. A potential also exists 
for a flood control structure to be built along the 
Fort Pearce Wash at some point in the future. 
Although no proposal or location has been 
completed for such a project, free-flowing val- 
ues of this intermittent stretch of river could be 
affected by its construction. Except where 
rights-of-way across public lands are required, 
BLM generally has no influence over the devel- 
opment of upstream water rights. 

Beaver Dam Wash, Segment A 

The outstandingly remarkable values for which 
this segment is eligible is for the recreation, his- 
toric, and riparian importance of this area on a 
regional basis. This area is within the Upper 
Beaver Dam Wash ACEC and the values would 
be protected and maintained by the manage- 
ment prescriptions outlined for this ACEC and 
the protective riparian measures listed previous- 
ly. The ACEC prescriptions require mining plans 
of operation for all locatable mineral actions 
other than casual use. As this river segment is 
within an area with high mineral potential and 
disturbance is likely, all surface disturbing activ- 
ities would require mitigation to preserve water- 
shed integrity and water quality and to maintain 
or improve potential habitat for threatened and 
endangered animal species and the Virgin 
spinedace. The 1995 Virgin Spinedace 
Conservation Agreement and Strategy would be 



implemented to eliminate the need for listing of 
this species. Motorized travel and mountain 
bike use would be limited to designated roads 
and trails, and lands would continue to be 
retained in public ownership. In addition, 7 
miles of the West Fork of the Beaver Dam Wash 
would be evaluated for designation as an anti- 
degradation segment. Therefore, BLM expects 
that the values in this stretch of river would con- 
tinue to be maintained. 

A proposed reservoir development at the upper 
reach of this stretch of river is not consistent 
with this Plan and would not be allowed. 
However, a potential culinary water well field 
could be placed within the river corridor, which 
could affect the river flows and change the wild 
character of this eligible river. Except where 
rights-of-way across public lands are required, 
BLM generally has no influence over the devel- 
opment of upstream water rights. 

Beaver Dam Wash, Segment C 

Hydrologic, riparian, recreational, wildlife, and 
fishery values are outstandingly remarkable and 
make this segment eligible. This area is within 
the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC, which was estab- 
lished for protection of the desert tortoises and 
other sensitive species. The outstandingly 
remarkable values would be protected from sur- 
face disturbance by the management prescrip- 
tions outlined for this ACEC and the protective 
riparian measures listed previously. The ACEC 
prescriptions require mining plans of operation 
for all locatable mineral actions other than casu- 
al use. As this river segment is within an area 
with high mineral potential and disturbance is 
likely, all surface disturbing activities would 
require mitigation to maintain or improve habi- 
tat for threatened and endangered animal 
species and the Virgin spinedace. The 1995 
Virgin Spinedace Conservation Agreement and 
Strategy would be implemented to eliminate the 
need for listing of this species. Motorized travel 
and mountain bike use would be limited to des- 
ignated roads and trails, and lands would con- 
tinue to be retained in public ownership. 
Therefore, BLM expects that the values in this 
stretch of river would continue to be main- 
tained. Because river flows in this segment are 
supported by artesian springs within this seg- 
ment, any upstream development should have 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.46 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



little effect on the continuation of these flows. 
Except where rights-of-way across public lands 
are required, BLM generally has no influence 
over the development of upstream water rights. 

Virgin River, Segment A 

The outstandingly remarkable values for which 
this segment was found eligible are scenic, 
recreational, wildlife, fisheries, and cultural. 
These values would generally be protected by 
the riparian management measures listed previ- 
ously. In addition, various stretches of the river 
would be managed with additional protection 
such as OHV use being limited to designated 
roads and trails, withdrawal of lands from min- 
eral entry, closure to fluid mineral leasing on the 
portions of the river corridor that lie within 
incorporated city boundaries, and management 
under VRM Class II objectives. Acquisition of 
other lands within the corridor would allow 
BLM to expand protective management along 
contiguous river sections. The 1995 Virgin 
Spinedace Conservation Agreement and Strategy 
would be implemented to eliminate the need for 
listing of this species. In addition, the Virgin 
River Fishes Recovery Plan for the two listed fish 
species would be implemented to protect popu- 
lation numbers. 

Proposals for upstream developments are 
described in the WCWCD's Virgin River 
Management Plan. These proposals include 
extraction of water from the river and could 
potentially affect river flows and some outstand- 
ingly remarkable values. Enough flow must be 
left in the river to promote the recovery of the 
listed fish species. Except where rights-of-way 
across public lands are required, BLM generally 
has no influence over the development of 
upstream water rights. Several proposed pro- 
jects could require BLM rights-of-way and 
impacts to critical resources would be analyzed 
under the NEPA process. 

Virgin River, Segment B, Upstream of the Beaver 
Dam Mountains Wilderness Area 

The outstandingly remarkable values for which 
this segment was found eligible are scenic, 
recreational, wildlife, fisheries, and cultural. 
These values would generally be protected by 
the riparian management measures listed previ- 



ously. This area lies within the Lower Virgin 
River ACEC, which would provide the following 
additional protective measures: lands retained in 
public ownership, OHV use limited to designat- 
ed roads and trails, mining plans of operation 
required for mineral entry, and management 
under VRM Class II objectives. In addition, this 
stretch of river would be managed according to 
the 1994 Virgin River Fishes Recovery Plan for 
the two listed fish species. 

As identified in the WCWCD's Water 
Conservation Plan for Washington County, treat- 
ed sewer effluent that is currently discharged 
into the Virgin River below St. George could be 
diverted for recycling and other uses. This pro- 
posal could affect the quantity of flow through 
the Virgin River Gorge. However, enough flow 
must be left in the river to promote the recovery 
of the listed fish species in accordance with the 
recovery plan. This proposal could require a 
right-of-way across public lands; in such a case, 
impacts to critical resources would be analyzed 
under the NEPA process. Except where rights- 
of-way across public lands are required, BLM 
generally has no influence over the develop- 
ment of upstream water rights. 

Santa Clara River, Segment B 

The unique cultural resource is the outstanding- 
ly remarkable value for which this segment was 
found eligible. This value would generally be 
protected by the riparian management measures 
listed previously. This area also lies within the 
Santa Clara River/Land Hill ACEC which would 
provide the following additional protective mea- 
sures: lands retained in public ownership, OHV 
use limited to designated roads and trails, min- 
ing plans of operation required for mineral 
entry, and management under VRM Class II 
objectives. In addition, this stretch of river 
would be managed according to the 1 995 Virgin 
Spinedace Conservation Agreement and Strategy 
in order to eliminate the need for listing of this 
species. One of the strategies in this Agreement 
is to provide year-round flows in the Santa Clara 
River below Gunlock reservoir, upstream of this 
segment. The minimal flows would be main- 
tained at 3 cubic feet per second (cfs). 

The WCWCD's Virgin River Management Plan 
identifies a proposal to pipe the Santa Clara 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.47 



C H A P T E 



NVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



River from Gunlock Reservoir to Ivins Reservoir 
and leave the 3 cfs in the drainage for year-long 
Spinedace habitat needs. The resulting reduc- 
tion in current flow should not affect the cultur- 
al value of this eligible segment. This proposal 
would likely require a right-of-way across public 
lands; therefore, impacts to critical resources 
would be analyzed under the NEPA process. 
Except where rights-of-way across public lands 
are required, BLM generally has no influence 
over the development of upstream water rights. 

La Verkin Creek, Below the Northernmost 
Parcel of Private Land 

Scenic, recreational, riparian, and hydrologic 
values were found to be outstandingly remark- 
able to make this segment eligible. These values 
would be protected from surface disturbing 
activities by several management prescriptions 
within the Proposed Plan. In addition to the 
protective riparian measures listed previously, 
the 1995 Virgin Spinedace Conservation 
Agreement and Strategy would be implemented 
to eliminate the need for listing of this species in 
the lower reaches of this river. In addition, the 
lower reaches of this river corridor lie within an 
incorporated city boundary, thereby closing that 
portion to fluid mineral leasing. The entire river 
corridor would be managed in accordance with 
VRM Class II objectives. 

The Proposed Plan recognizes a portion of the 
segment as a potential site for reservoir develop- 
ment identified by state and local water authori- 
ties. Should a reservoir be constructed at this 
site, outstandingly remarkable values and the 
free-flowing character of this river would likely 
by affected. This proposal would require a 
right-of-way across public lands; therefore, 
impacts to critical resources would be analyzed 
under the NEPA process. Except where rights- 
of-way across public lands are required, BLM 
generally has no influence over the develop- 
ment of upstream water rights. 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 



prevent irreparable damage to important his- 
toric, cultural, scenic, threatened and endan- 
gered species, watersheds, riparian systems, and 
other critical resources. Generally, all lands 
within the ACECs would be retained in public 
ownership in order to preserve the integrity of 
the resource values. Exceptions could occur 
where the possibility exists for the patenting of 
mining claims, particularly within the high- 
value mineral area of the Upper Beaver Dam 
Wash ACEC. 

Beaver Dam Slope ACEC: in order to preserve 
the relevance and importance values for this 
ACEC, prescriptions to protect desert tortoise, 
desert ecosystems, and the scientific research 
necessary to study such systems, as well as a 
National Natural Landmark have been pro- 
posed. Potential acquisition of up to 2,439 
acres of state/private land within this ACEC 
would help preserve the uniform management 
integrity of this critically sensitive area, in addi- 
tion, protection strategies for the desert tortoise, 
which includes deferment of spring grazing on 
three allotments, as well as other requirements 
discussed under the Wildlife section of the 
Proposed Plan, would be implemented. Also 
included in that section is an array of other 
management prescriptions to protect and 
enhance desert tortoise habitat and to also serve 
to meet objectives for nontortoise issues identi- 
fied on the Slope including maintaining the 
overall health of the desert ecosystems, improv- 
ing habitats for other special status animal 
species and their habitats, and preserving the 
natural values and research capabilities for the 
Joshua Tree National Natural Landmark and the 
Woodbury Desert Study Area. Portions of three 
utility corridors transect this ACEC and could 
have some minimal negative impacts; however, 
mitigation requirements under Section 7 consul- 
tation with the FWS would need to be applied 
to any future right-of-way authorizations within 
these corridors. If such rights-of-way could not 
meet the nonjeopardy criteria or the approval of 
the authorized officer, other alternatives could 
be initiated. 



Specific actions to protect the values of ACECs 
are described under the Special Emphasis Areas 
of the Proposed Plan. This planning process has 
identified certain public land areas that require 
enhanced management attention in order to 



Upper Beaver Dam Wash ACEC: In order to 
preserve the relevance and importance values 
for this ACEC, prescriptions to protect the water- 
shed and riparian values of this area (especially 
for the Southwestern willow flycatcher and 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.48 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



Virgin spinedace habitats) have been proposed. 
Among other things, these resources would be 
protected through OHV restrictions and clo- 
sures, rights-of-way avoidance area designation, 
closure to mineral materials sales, allowing 
potential habitat enhancements including rein- 
troduction of spinedace, and/or eradication of 
nonindigenous fish. In addition, mining plans 
of operation would be required and fluid miner- 
al development would be restricted by category 
II and III stipulations. Special recreation permits 
could be issued in this area only if found not to 
adversely affect the values for which the ACEC 
was designated. Although the area would 
require a plan of operation for all mining activi- 
ties, significant impacts could occur in this area 
of high locatable mineral potential, impacts to 
water quality, riparian values, special status 
species habitat, as well as scenic values and 
recreational activities could occur. 

Red Mountain ACEC: In order to preserve the 
relevance and importance values for this ACEC, 
prescriptions to protect the high scenic values of 
this important picturesque backdrop of local 
communities have been proposed. Protection 
strategies for the scenic values include closing 
the area to OHV use to prevent scarring, allow- 
ing fluid mineral development under a No 
Surface Occupancy category, closing the ACEC 
to fuelwood and mineral materials sales, desig- 
nating the area a right-of-way avoidance area 
(automatically requiring a plan of operation for 
any locatable mineral exploration or develop- 
ment), placing the lands under a VRM Class 1 
management objective, and carefully monitor- 
ing, and limiting if necessary, special recreation 
permits within the ACEC. A utility corridor is 
proposed on the extreme northern boundary of 
this ACEC and could have some minimal poten- 
tial to interfere with the viewshed from this 
ACEC; however, the corridor is within a canyon 
that is screened by heavily wooded cover and is 
not visually intrusive. A large utility line is 
already in place within this corridor. 

Santa Clara River/Gunlock ACEC: In order to 
preserve the relevance and importance values 
for this ACEC, prescriptions to protect the cultur- 
al resources, riparian systems, wildlife habitat, 
and special status species have been proposed. 
Protection strategies include OHV and moun- 
tain bike limitations to designated roads and 



trails, fencing, barricading, and signing the area 
to eliminate unauthorized access and protect 
and enhance riparian zones, management of 
selected archeological sties for public values 
and interpretation for educational use, and pro- 
tection of archeological sites through surveil- 
lance and other law enforcement measures to 
deter vandalism. The ACEC would also be 
closed to mineral materials sales, fuelwood 
sales, and would be an established right-of-way 
avoidance area as well as a fluid mineral No 
Surface Occupancy area. Plans of operation for 
locatable minerals would be required for all 
activities; however, this area is within a low 
mineral potential area and mining operations 
are not anticipated. A small utility corridor 
would be designated along the highway right-of- 
way between Gunlock Reservoir and the 
Shivwits Indian Reservation and should have 
minimal, if any, impact to the resources being 
protected. Special recreation permits would 
only be authorized within the ACEC if deter- 
mined not to have adverse affects on the values 
for which the ACEC was designated. 

Santa Clara River/Land Hill ACEC: In order to 
preserve the relevance and importance values 
for this ACEC, prescriptions to protect the cultur- 
al resources. Virgin spinedace, riparian systems, 
and the southwest willow flycatcher habitat 
have been proposed. Potential acquisition of up 
to 1 62 acres of private land within this ACEC 
would help preserve the uniform management 
and integrity of this critically sensitive area. 
Protection strategies include limiting OHV and 
mountain bike use to designated roads and 
trails, closing the area to fuelwood and mineral 
materials sales, and designating the ACEC a 
right-of-way avoidance area. In addition, the 
ACEC would also be a fluid mineral No Surface 
Occupancy area. Plans of operation for locat- 
able minerals would be required for all activities 
even though this area is within a moderate min- 
eral potential area. Locatable mineral mining 
could adversely affect the values for which the 
ACEC was designated. Special recreation per- 
mits would only be authorized within the ACEC 
if determined not to have adverse affects on the 
values for which the ACEC was designated. 

Lower Virgin River ACEC: In order to preserve 
the relevance and importance values for this 
ACEC, prescriptions to protect the cultural 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.49 



CHAPTER 3 



NVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



resources, endangered fish species, riparian sys- 
tems, and wildlife habitat (specifically for the 
Southwestern willow flycatcher) have been pro- 
posed. This area fails completely under public 
land ownership and would be retained as such 
to manage and protect the values within it. 
Protection strategies include working with part- 
ners to reestablish and protect year-round flows 
within the Virgin River, habitat improvements, 
eradication of nonindigenous fish species, pro- 
tection of floodpiains, and water quality 
improvement. This area would be closed to 
fuelwood and mineral materials sales and desig- 
nated a right-of-way avoidance area except for 
the existing Navajo-McCullough utility corridor. 
This mile-wide utility corridor would bisect the 
southern portion of the ACEC and could have 
some minimal negative impacts from future 
development; however, mitigation requirements 
under Section 7 consultation with the FWS 
would need to be applied to any future right-of- 
way authorizations within this corridor. If such 
rights-of-way could not meet the nonjeopardy 
criteria or the approval of the authorized officer, 
other alternatives could be initiated. OHV and 
mountain bike use would be restricted to desig- 
nated roads and trails, and plans of operation 
would be required for beatable mineral activity. 
This area is within a moderate mineral potential 
area and beatable mineral mining could 
adversely affect the values for which the ACEC 
was designated. 

Red Bluff ACEC: In order to preserve the rele- 
vance and importance values for this ACEC, pre- 
scriptions to protect dwarf bear-claw poppy 
habitat and saline soils that contribute to the 
Colorado River salinity problems have been pro- 
posed. Potential acquisition of 640 acres of 
state land within this ACEC would help preserve 
the uniform management and integrity of this 
critically sensitive area. Protection strategies 
include withdrawing the lands from beatable 
mineral entry, limiting OHV use to designated 
roads and trails, allowing for one designated 
mountain bike trail within the habitat to provide 
for community needs, closing the area to fuel- 
wood and mineral materials sales, and designat- 
ing the ACEC a right-of-way avoidance area. In 
addition, the ACEC would also be a fluid miner- 
al No Surface Occupancy area. Specific strate- 
gies for protection of the species include work- 



ing with user groups to design trails and redirect 
current use to avoid poppy damage. Signing, 
fencing, and barricading would also be 
employed to prevent unauthorized vehicle 
access. Cryptogamic soils would be protected 
through specific actions in this ACEC to protect 
saline soils and critically eroding soils through 
the use of best management practices and moni- 
toring special recreation permits to ensure no 
adverse effect to the values being protected. 

Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce ACEC: In order to 
preserve the relevance and importance values 
for this ACEC, prescriptions to protect endan- 
gered plant species, saline soils that contribute 
to the Colorado River salinity problems, riparian 
systems, state-listed animal species such as the 
spotted bat and Gila monster, waterfowl, rap- 
tors, and nongame species, and the Fort Pearce 
Historic Site have been proposed. Protection 
strategies include withdrawing the lands from 
beatable mineral entry, limiting OHV use and 
mountain bikes to designated roads and trails, 
closing the area to fuelwood and mineral mate- 
rials sales, and designating the ACEC a right-of- 
way avoidance area. Although a right-of-way 
avoidance area, future plans for a "Southern 
Transportation Corridor" route could create sig- 
nificant impacts if not engineered to avoid or 
mitigate the values identified for this ACEC. In 
addition. Section 7 consultation with the FWS 
for the endangered species would be required. 
If the proposed corridor route could not meet 
the nonjeopardy criteria or receive approval 
from the authorized officer, other alternatives 
may be initiated. In addition, the ACEC would 
also be a fluid mineral No Surface Occupancy 
area. Specific strategies for protection of the 
species includes signing, fencing, and barricad- 
ing to prevent unauthorized vehicle access. 
Cryptogamic soils would be protected through 
specific actions in this ACEC to protect saline 
soils and critically eroding soils through the use 
of best management practices and monitoring 
special recreation permits to ensure no adverse 
effect to the values being protected. 

Little Creek Mountain ACEC: In order to pre- 
serve the relevance and importance values for 
this ACEC, prescriptions to protect the cultural 
resources have been proposed. Protection 
strategies include limiting use to existing roads 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.50 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



and trails with selected closures on specific 
roads (as of yet unidentified) for safety and 
resource protection purposes, closing the area to 
mineral materials sales except for the existing 
operation at Cinder Knoll, and designating the 
ACEC a right-of-way avoidance area except for 
the approved communication sites already in 
place. A proposed utility corridor overlays a 
portion of the northern boundary of the ACEC 
along Highway 89. Any rights-of-way autho- 
rized within this utility corridor should not 
degrade the cultural values within this sensitive 
area. In addition, the ACEC would fall under a 
Category II mineral leasing stipulation to protect 
critical deer winter range from November 1 to 
April 15. Plans of operation for locatable min- 
erals would be required for all activities within 
this low mineral potential area. Special recre- 
ation permits would only be authorized within 
the ACEC if determined not to have adverse 
effects on the values for which the ACEC was 
designated. Heightened surveillance, law 
enforcement, and site steward programs would 
be used to deter vandalism within this ACEC. 

Canaan Mountain ACEC: In order to preserve 
the relevance and importance values for this 
ACEC, prescriptions to protect the high scenic 
values of this important Zion National Park 
backdrop and cultural resources have been pro- 
posed. Potential acquisition of up to 3,234 
acres of state land in the middle of this ACEC 
would serve to facilitate management of this 
area by consolidating the lands under public 
ownership to allow for the uniform management 
and integrity of the area. In addition, protection 
strategies for the scenic values include closing 
the area to OEIV use and mountain bike use to 
prevent scarring and resource degradation, only 
allowing fluid mineral development under a No 
Surface Occupancy category, closing the ACEC 
to fuelwood and mineral materials sales, desig- 
nating the area a right-of-way avoidance area, 
automatically lequiring a plan of operalion for 
any locatable mineral exploration or develop- 
ment, placing the lands under a VRM Class I 
management objective and carefully monitoring, 
and limiting if necessary, special recreation per- 
mits within the ACEC. Although closed to OHV 
use, the eastern portion of this ACEC continues 
to have considerable illegal OHV activity. 
Currently, it is not anticipated that this activity 



would decrease due to the limited law enforce- 
ment capabilities in the resource area. 

Overall, ACEC values for all 10 ACECs would be 
managed for their long-term conservation and 
preservation. Direct impacts could occur, how- 
ever, from certain allowable activities such as 
locatable mineral development, corridor devel- 
opment, OHV activities, and some recreational 
activities. 

Impacts on 

Socioeconomic Factors 

By the year 2020, population in Utah is project- 
ed to exceed 3.1 million and population in 
Washington County is expected to grow from 
79,831 to 177,570 (Utah GOPB, 1997). Local 
planners expect that the St. George urban area 
will soon surpass population thresholds for met- 
ropolitan statistical and planning purposes. 
BLM acknowledges that with this growth, busi- 
ness ventures, social interaction, and visitation 
from northern Utah and out-of-state will 
increase as community infrastructure expands 
and people are drawn to the natural attractions 
and other amenities of Washington County. 
Thus, some social and economic effects would 
extend out of area as a result of decisions made 
on public lands in this county. Regions most 
likely to feel such effects would include Utah's 
Wasatch Front, southern Nevada, and portions 
of southern California. Insufficient data is avail- 
able to make accurate and comprehensive pro- 
jections on the nature, magnitude, and geo- 
graphic extent of such impacts. In contrast to 
well-recognized local effects, however, BLM 
believes that out-of-area impacts would be rela- 
tively minor and will not address them further in 
this Proposed Plan. 

Public lands administered by the BLM in 
Washington County are integral to the social 
and economic well-being of citizens throughout 
the county and the surrounding region, includ- 
ing portions of the five-county area and north- 
west Arizona. Public lands comprise nearly 40 
percent of the lands in Washington County and, 
by virtue of their location and extent, play a sig- 
nificant role in the cultural and economic affairs 
of people who work, reside, and recreate here. 
Local residents, municipalities, and numerous 
agencies rely heavily on these public lands for 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL [MPACT STATEMENT 



3.51 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



access, water development, mineral materials, 
utility rights-of-way, livestock grazing, recre- 
ation, and various public purposes. The extent 
to which the public lands remain available for 
such uses directly impacts the ability of affected 
communities to meet basic needs, maintain 
healthy, diverse economies, and have confi- 
dence that the future will continue to bring 
opportunities to achieve important community 
objectives. Moreover, the extent to which the 
public lands in the county continue to provide 
natural amenities including extensive open 
space, exceptional scenery, and a great diversity 
of wildlife, impacts directly on the quality of life 
and the ability to sustain economic growth and 
stability in the recreation and tourism industries. 

With these factors in mind, specific actions 
called for in this Proposed Plan would result in 
the following consequences to social and eco- 
nomic conditions: 

Lands 

Transfer of up to 1 8,000 acres out of federal 
ownership near the urban interface in 
Washington County through sale, exchange, or 
other conveyance authority would meet needs 
for community expansion including commer- 
cial, residential, and industrial purposes. These 
would include satisfaction of state quantity grant 
obligations and inholding exchanges with the 
Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 
Administration (SITLA) that would promote 
increased revenues to the trust fund for the ben- 
efit of state schools and institutions. Leases and 
conveyances under the Recreation and Public 
Purposes Act would continue to provide impor- 
tant opportunities to state, local, and qualified 
nonprofit organizations to acquire discounted 
properties to facilitate much needed public pur- 
poses including schools, parks, recreation sites, 
and other municipal facilities. Existing leases 
on nine properties would continue to support 
such causes at reduced cost. 

Acquisition of up to 18,000 acres of non-federal 
lands within the Washington County HCP 
Reserve would allow Washington County to 
receive full benefit of its incidental take permit 
and obtain release of up to 12,264 acres within 
approved take areas for various forms of com- 
mercial, residential, or industrial development. 



Such acquisitions would also release up to $200 
million of state, municipal, and private lands 
from development constraints in the Reserve by 
providing owners cash or lands of equal value 
outside of the Reserve, thus allowing them to 
pursue full use of their property. 

Designation of 12 utility corridors would facili- 
tate planning and construction of up to 24 new 
linear utilities including pipelines, optic fiber 
and telephone lines, and transmission and distri- 
bution lines, while reducing the costs for envi- 
ronmental study and mitigation. Continued use 
of the corridors would help meet significant, 
long-term community needs for energy, water, 
and communications. Approval of up to 24 
rights-of-way per year throughout the county 
would meet individual and community needs 
for small distribution lines, communication 
facilities, access routes, water developments, 
and other municipal purposes. Such authoriza- 
tions would sustain essential community infra- 
structure and projected growth in local areas. 
Together, these actions would promote a modest 
increase in jobs and wages associated with pro- 
ject construction and new business opportuni- 
ties made possible by the projects. 

Energy and Mineral Resources 

The majority of public lands in Washington 
County would remain open to fluid mineral 
leasing, except in Wilderness Study Areas and 
where leasing has been foreclosed by large 
increases in municipal incorporation. 
Nevertheless, low potential for oil and gas 
throughout most of the resource area, fluctuat- 
ing markets, and environmental constraints 
would likely mean little, if any, change in eco- 
nomic contributions from this sector. 

In like fashion, unpredictable market conditions, 
high production costs, urbanization, and envi- 
ronmental constraints would limit the likelihood 
of significant locatable mineral production out- 
side of an estimated 600 acres of development 
that could occur over the life of this Plan in the 
high potential areas of the Beaver Dam 
Mountains, the upper tributaries of the Beaver 
Dam Wash, or at Silver Reef. Under the most 
favorable circumstances, such development 
could create up to 100 new jobs in the mining 
industry which would help diversify local 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.52 



CHART E R 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



economies and reverse recent downward trends 
in mining employment in the county. An addi- 
tional 1 00 jobs could be created as a result of 
indirect and induced economic effects in the 
trade, services, construction, manufacturing, 
transportation, and financial sectors. Using 
average 1990 wages throughout the Colorado 
Plateau as reported by Hecox and Ack (1996) 
and prorating industry distribution, a maximum 
potential increase in yearly total wages could 
occur of approximately $4,530,000 during the 
economic life of the mines. 

BLM would provide mineral materials including 
sand, gravel, cinders, and decorative stone 
through the continued operation of about 10 
community materials pits. Based on recent 3- 
year averages (1994-1997), these would lead to 
the yearly issuance of 10 free use permits to 
local and state agencies for construction and 
road maintenance, and 235 permits to private 
individuals and commercial entities for con- 
struction, landscaping, and retail sales. Total 
estimated quantities of materials provided on a 
yearly basis would amount to 1 87,350 cubic 
yards of sand, gravel, and cinders, and 990 tons 
of decorative stone. Equivalent retail outlet 
value of the materials sold and permitted annu- 
ally would amount to $1,467,000. Annual rev- 
enues generated for the U.S. Treasury from the 
permit sales would amount to $91,600. 

Transportation 

BLM's participation in planning for a new trans- 
portation corridor between St. George and 
Hildale with a bypass spur to west Hurricane 
could help remedy current and projected safety 
and traffic issues by rerouting heavy trucks and 
increased through traffic out of residential and 
commercial districts. It would also facilitate 
access to a proposed new airport site southwest 
of St. George considered by community leaders 
to be essential for future economic health in the 
urbanizing portions of the county (Utah DOT, 
1996). 

Continued use and maintenance of the exten- 
sive road network throughout Washington 
County under right-of-way or maintenance 
agreement would provide essential public and 
government agency access to livestock opera- 
tions, mining properties, utility and communica- 



tion facilities, range and wildlife developments, 
recreation sites, research areas, monitoring sta- 
tions, and intermingled non-federal property. 
Such use would promote the orderly conduct of 
private and agency business, allow for inspec- 
tion and maintenance of facilities, and provide 
for transportation essential to commerce and 
economic activity. 

Water Resources 

Under this Proposed Plan, public lands would 
continue to support municipal water develop- 
ment including well sites, storage projects, and 
pipeline systems needed to sustain municipal, 
industrial, and agricultural purposes in the 
county. Municipal watersheds on public lands 
would also be protected under state and federal 
laws to prevent contamination of critical surface 
waters and groundwater aquifers from incom- 
patible uses, thus providing long-term security 
to communities dependent on those resources. 

Recent transfer of lands through exchange to the 
WCWCD will allow for construction and opera- 
tion of a 30,000 acre-foot reservoir at Sand 
Hollow to supplement storage capacity at the 
Quail Creek Reservoir Project. BLM would also 
recognize unique values associated with water 
storage potential on five additional public land 
sites identified by the WCWCD or the Utah 
Division of Water Resources. Although actual 
development of any of the additional sites 
would require detailed engineering and environ- 
mental studies prior to approval, they offer 
water storage alternatives to other proposed 
storage projects which have been eliminated 
from further consideration because of environ- 
mental and resource conflicts. Such alternatives 
would remain in place to provide potential solu- 
tions to water storage issues likely to face 
Washington County in the future. 

One 355-acre reservoir proposal on the upper 
West Fork of the Beaver Dam Wash currently 
under application to BLM from the WCWCD 
would not be approved as a result of conflicts 
with management objectives in this Proposed 
Plan for restoration of habitat for the Virgin 
spinedace, protection of potential habitat for the 
endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher, and 
maintenance of important riparian systems. The 
reservoir would have provided storage capacity 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.53 



C H A P T E 



3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



of 25,800 acre-feet of water to service munici- 
pal and industrial water needs for growing com- 
munities in the St. George area. It would also 
have provided one option for meeting some or 
all water rights claims on the Shivwits Indian 
Reservation. Construction of the Sand Hollow 
Reservoir and potential development of a 
pipeline to bring water from Lake Powell, how- 
ever, could eliminate the need for the West Fork 
Beaver Dam Wash Reservoir by providing ade- 
quate water resources to meet all projected 
needs during the life of this Plan. The Plan also 
leaves open the potential of a well-field devel- 
opment for culinary water on the Beaver Dam 
Wash to meet a portion of these needs, if found 
consistent with other objectives in this Plan. 
Nevertheless, BLM recognizes that rejection of 
this site could have substantial economic conse- 
quences for Washington County if other alterna- 
tives do not materialize as planned. In the 
worst case analysis, it would be assumed that in 
addition to one-time losses due to lost reservoir 
construction and residential and commercial 
development that would have been made possi- 
ble by water availability, ongoing annual losses 
would accrue from lost economic activity driven 
by new residents and businesses served by the 
reservoir. Using methodology provided by 
Groesbeck (1996), the one-time economic loss 
to the county could be as high as $568,350,000 
and annual losses thereafter as high as 
$80,731,000 (assuming 5 percent annual popu- 
lation growth, 20 percent water conservation, 
1 percent of new water needs met by transfer 
from agricultural use, and a shortage probability 
of .17). 

Livestock Grazing Management 

Public lands would continue to support up to 
1 10 grazing allotments on nearly 560,000 acres 
in Washington County and thus help sustain the 
economic well-being and rural lifestyles of over 
100 operators and their families. Land retention 
policies in the western third of the county and 
other portions of the resource area would offer 
stability to affected operators during a time of 
great change and social-economic stress within 
the agricultural sector of rapidly urbanizing 
Washington County. The maintenance of ihe 
ranching lifestyle constitutes a fundamental 
objective of most rural communities and unin- 
corporated areas in the region and remains 



important to community leaders and other inter- 
ests in the urban centers of Hurricane and St. 
George. Without public lands to support graz- 
ing during essential times of the year, most 
ranching operations in the county and their 
associated lifestyles would largely disappear. 
Although the total economic contribution from 
public land ranching in the county is no longer 
statistically significant, substantial erosion of the 
lifestyle would be seen by a majority of local 
residents as a significant and unacceptable loss 
to the regional culture (Washington County, 
1994). 

Transfer of up to 1 8,000 acres of public lands 
out of federal ownership would disrupt grazing 
operations on up to 24 allotments located on 
the urban interface, near major transportation 
routes, within incorporated city limits, or other- 
wise in the path of rapid urbanization. The 
transfers would involve the potential loss of up 
to 900 AUMs and associated income. Disrup- 
tion could also occur to existing pastures, stock 
waters, fences, and access, and require outlay of 
capital to restore functionality to existing graz- 
ing systems. In negotiating exchanges and land 
transfers, BLM would attempt to mitigate such 
impacts by selective configuration of land 
parcels to avoid unnecessary disruption and 
promoting agreements with exchange propo- 
nents to help compensate for or replace lost 
assets. 

Retirement of grazing permits within the 
Washington County HCP Reserve would result 
in the elimination of four allotments and the 
loss of income generated from livestock opera- 
tions in those units involving 1,333 federal 
AUMs. Moreover, with retirement of grazing 
permits on the federal lands, the remaining pri- 
vately-owned base properties formerly associat- 
ed with those permits would become more sus- 
ceptible to nonagricultural development. To the 
extent such development occurs, the rural 
lifestyle would be diminished. Similar impacts 
would occur if other operators voluntarily relin- 
quish grazing permits elsewhere in the Reserve. 

Recreation and OHV Management 

Growth in tourism throughout the five-county 
area in southwest Utah continues to be high 
and plays an ever more important role in the 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.54 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



economy of the region. The Utah Division of 
Parks and Recreation projected such growth to 
be 46.3 percent between 1 990 and 2000 (Utah 
SCORP, 1992). Public lands in Washington 
County would remain open to most forms of 
touring and outdoor recreation and, by so 
doing, would contribute to the pattern of growth 
within BLM's general recreation niche. While 
the public lands have traditionally supported 
low to moderate levels of dispersed recreation, 
the unprecedented growth in the recreation 
industry in this part of the state is forcing a 
change that has recreation claiming a much 
larger share of public land activity. The 
demands are widespread but are most notable 
in motorized recreation, mountain biking, and 
rock climbing, and involve an increasing num- 
ber of visitors from outside the local area. 
Sources within the private sector, for example, 
claim that St. George will join Moab, Utah, as 
an ultimate destination for mountain bikers from 
around the world (Spectrum, April 3, 1998). 
The 1996 Economic and Travel Industry Profiles 
for Utah Counties, prepared by the Utah 
Department of Community and Economic 
Development, estimated travel spending in 
Washington County at approximately $180 mil- 
lion. Gross taxable sales for tourist-related ser- 
vices nearly doubled between 1990 and 1995, 
and the Washington County Travel and 
Convention Bureau reports the local 3 percent 
transient room tax generated just under $1 mil- 
lion in 1996. Although no data exists to depict 
the full impact of public land recreation on this 
growth, hunting opportunities and the numerous 
trails, open spaces, and scenic areas available 
on a year-round basis to the public in 
Washington County contribute to this important 
economic activity. These highly sought-after 
amenities would provide a continuing draw for 
tourists and recreation users who support local 
retail and service industries catering to such 
interests. Development and designation of new 
trails and linking to other trail systems on adja- 
cent BLM and Forest Service units would pro- 
vide more attractions and generate additional 
economic opportunities including those being 
embraced by a growing number of tour guides 
and special event promoters. 

Proposals for BLM to enter into cooperative 
management agreements with the National Park 
Service and the Utah Division of Parks and 



Recreation for joint use and management of 
selected public lands adjacent to Zion National 
Park and Snow Canyon State Park would allow 
both park units and BLM to meet essential goals 
for visitor management and for responding to 
additional recreation demands. Such collabora- 
tion would be essential in dealing effectively 
with seasonal overcrowding and inadequate 
facilities. It would also provide opportunities to 
integrate goals of the respective parks with the 
economic objectives of local businesses and 
nearby communities by creating innovative part- 
nerships for visitor services and concessionaire 
operations. Both parks continue to be major 
destination points for out-of-area tourists, and 
combined, attract well over 3 million visitors 
annually. As such, they play a significant role in 
the economic health of the county and sur- 
rounding areas. 

Future Growth and Development Opportunities 

Under this Proposed Plan, BLM would impose a 
number of administrative closures and land use 
restrictions necessary to protect sensitive and 
important resource values on public lands with- 
in the county. In many cases those values make 
a contribution to the social and economic well- 
being of the county and include such amenities 
as scenic landscapes, open space, clean water, 
stable soils, productive habitats for diverse 
wildlife species, properly functioning flood- 
plains and riparian zones critical to healthy 
desert ecosystems, and opportunities for outdoor 
recreation. Frequently, these values are what 
bring people to live or play in Washington 
County. Failure to protect such values would 
have negative social and economic conse- 
quences that would be spread across a wide 
spectrum of interests throughout the region, a 
point recognized by the State of Utah in the 
21st Century Community Initiative (Utah GRPO, 
1997). Moreover, BLM is required by law and 
policy to take proactive steps to meet state and 
federal requirements for pollution abatement, 
soil erosion, floodplain protection, recovery of 
listed plant and animal species, and other envi- 
ronmental goals. Failure to do so would result 
in imposition of penalties and additional land 
use restrictions by enforcement agencies at state 
and federal levels that could be unnecessarily 
limiting and economically disruptive. 



DIXIE RESOURCi: AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FfNAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.55 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



BLM acknowledges that the administrative clo- 
sures and land use restrictions so proposed 
could result in numerous lost future economic 
opportunities within various sectors that depend 
in whole or in part on public lands for their 
conduct of business. Entities impacted could 
include recreation providers, mining ventures, 
energy firms, utility companies, agricultural 
enterprises, and water management agencies, 
among others. Lost opportunities could occur 
from outright prohibition of a given activity in a 
closed area or from increased costs associated 
with environmental compliance that makes the 
activity economically impractical or unattrac- 
tive. It is not possible to predict with any 
degree of accuracy when and where such 
opportunities would actually be foreclosed with- 
out specific proposals to analyze. In consider- 
ing alternatives for resource management 
throughout the county, BLM attempted to pro- 
vide options that would allow for the full range 
of uses including those essential for economic 
stability and reasonable growth. Arguments pre- 
sented to BLM during the development of this 
Proposed Plan that each lost opportunity would 
result in a net current loss to the economic well- 
being of Washington County are simply not per- 
suasive where BLM has provided reasonable 
alternatives, and the proposed land use restric- 
tions are the outcome of law and policy outside 
the scope of this Plan. Moreover, the arguments 
fail to take into account long-term social and 
economic costs associated with not adequately 
protecting the limited natural resources of the 
county and presume, without substantiation, 
that community values would always favor eco- 
nomic over noneconomic benefits. In any case, 
it is fully beyond the scope of this Proposed 
Plan to analyze and quantify each possible lost 
opportunity that might occur over the life of the 
Plan. Potential opportunities may or may not 
ever materialize under any land use prescrip- 
tion, and such analysis would amount to cum- 
bersome and unproductive speculation. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

BLM has recommended portions or all of five 
river segments in Washington County as suitable 
for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System. If Congress elects to designate 
any or all of the segments in accordance with 



BLM's recommendations. Section 13 of the Wild 
and Scenic Rivers Act would normally create a 
federal reserved water right effective as of the 
date of enactment of the legislation. Such water 
right would be limited to that quantification 
needed to accomplish the purposes of the legis- 
lation. Because BLM's recommendations recog- 
nize and incorporate the terms of the Zion 
National Park Water Rights Agreement, BLM 
does not anticipate that the federal reserved 
water right would impact or foreclose develop- 
ment of private or municipal water rights 
upstream or up-gradient of Zion National Park 
as provided in the Agreement. No economic 
opportunities would be lost. 

Two river segments below Zion National Park 
recommended as suitable are upper La Verkin 
Creek and that part of the lower Virgin River 
within the Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness. 
Upper La Verkin Creek encompasses one poten- 
tial reservoir site identified by the Utah Division 
of Water Resources. Congressional designation 
of that segment would foreclose future develop- 
ment of that site for water storage. No specific 
proposals for site development currently exist. 
Communications with WCWCD officials have 
indicated that interest in the site is low because 
of geologic concerns and the need to pursue 
other water development alternatives with high- 
er priority and greater potential for meeting 
long-term water needs (Ron Thompson, personal 
communication, 1997). With other, more effec- 
tive alternatives available, no adverse economic 
impacts would be expected to occur as a result 
of congressional designation. 

Congressional designation of the lower Virgin 
River in the Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness 
would have no impacts on existing rights, privi- 
leges, and contracts. Because any federal 
reserved water right created by designation 
would be subject to the McCarren Amendment, 
which requires such water rights to be managed 
in accordance with applicable state water law, 
existing water rights and developments would 
be fully protected. The extent to which unper- 
fected water rights, future diversion changes, 
and new upstream developments below Zion 
National Park would be impacted would 
depend on a) the specific provisions of the legis- 
lation putting the designation in place, b) the 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL E N V I R O N M E N TA I IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.56 



CHAPTER 3 * ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



nature of the development proposed including 
the amount of instream flow reduction, if any, 
and c) the need for federal lands, resources, or 
permits to complete the development. 
Uncertainty over the impacts of a federal nexus 
on such prospective actions could have an 
unsettling effect on municipalities and water 
users needing long-term security and flexibility 
in water management programs. Even without 
wild and scenic river designation, however, 
changes in flows within the river could be con- 
strained by requirements of the Endangered 
Species Act to protect the habitats of fish 
presently listed under the Act. BLM believes 
that flows necessary to sustain and recover pro- 
tected fish species along with periodic flood 
events that would occur under any likely river 
management scenario would be adequate to 
sustain the values for which this river segment 
would be designated. As a practical matter, this 
means that designation of this segment under 
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would have no 
impacts to upstream developments that are not 
already imposed by existing law and regulation. 
No additional adverse economic impacts should 
occur as a result. 

National recognition of any river segments des- 
ignated by Congress under the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act would serve as an additional draw for 
tourists and recreationists to Washington County 
and have a corresponding positive impact on 
the tourism sector of the local economy. Data 
does not yet exist to allow a meaningful quan- 
tification of such impacts. 

State, Federal, and Tribal Lands 

Elements of the Proposed Plan were formulated 
to be as consistent and complementary as possi- 
ble with the goals and objectives of other agen- 
cies or Indian tribes managing lands that abut or 
are intermingled with public lands in this 
resource area. These include the National Park 
Service, Forest Service, Utah Division of Parks 
and Recreation, Utah School and Institutional 
Trust Lands Administration, Shivwits Band of 
Paiute Indians, and adjoining BLM districts in 
Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. Where agency 
missions and resource objectives are similar, 
consistency was generally reached and conflicts 
were avoided that could have resulted in dys- 



functional management along mutual bound- 
aries with potentially adverse economic effects. 
Such consistency exists with the National Park 
Service, Forest Service, State Parks, and adjoin- 
ing BLM districts. Collaborative management 
proposals and use of shared resources should 
facilitate accomplishment of respective agency 
missions and promote a more efficient use of 
public funds and resources. 

Management proposals for public lands sur- 
rounding the Shivwits Indian Reservation pro- 
vide for continued use of such lands by Native 
Americans for cultural, religious, and ceremoni- 
al purposes. Further, the Plan provides for 
cooperative agreements with the Shivwits Band 
and the Paiute Tribe to accomplish programs of 
mutual interest concerning the use and manage- 
ment of lands containing sacred sites or 
resources of importance to the tribe. Public 
lands surrounding the reservation and known 
sacred sites would generally be retained in pub- 
lic ownership and consultation would continue 
to be completed in accordance with the Native 
American Graves Protection and Repatriation 
Act and other applicable statutes. Thus, tribal 
cultural interests should be protected throughout 
the life of the Plan. BLM would also provide 
rights-of-way, land use authorizations, or agree- 
ments on public lands needed to accomplish 
objectives for economic development and self- 
determination. Along with BLM technical coor- 
dination in resource programs, these actions 
would support achievement of the goals of the 
Paiute Indian Tribe's Strategic Economic 
Development Plan. 

Lands administered by the Utah School and 
Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) 
are managed by law for the benefit of Utah 
schools and institutions. The present state land 
ownership pattern consists, in large part, of iso- 
lated sections scattered throughout the county. 
Where School Trust lands are encompassed by 
public lands dedicated to special management 
for resource protection, opportunities for eco- 
nomic development could be curtailed as 
adjoining public lands may not be available for 
such use. In a few instances, however, potential 
for School Trust development could be 
enhanced due to lack of competing develop- 
ment on the nearby public lands. The Proposed 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.57 



CHAPTER 3 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



Plan recognizes the importance of effective 
coordination witli SITLA to ensure that the pur- 
poses for which the Trust was established are 
realized. The following actions called for in the 
Plan would help accomplish that objective: 

• BLM would grant access and rights-of-way 
across public lands for utilities or other 
purposes, subject to environmental analy- 
sis and plan conformance review, to 
allow use and development of isolated 
School Trust lands in the resource area; 
BLM would work with SITLA officials to 
minimize or eliminate adverse impacts, if 
any, to adjacent public lands or resources 
from such development. 

• BLM would continue to promote achieve- 
ment of the goals of current agreements 
with the State of Utah to reduce state 
inholdings within federal reservations 
through exchange of public lands to fur- 
ther opportunities for economic develop- 
ment. Within Washington County, such 
exchanges could substantially reduce 
state inholdings within the HCP Reserve, 
the Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness 
Area, and critical habitat areas for the 
dwarf bear-claw poppy. In return, SITLA 
would receive lands of equivalent value in 
and adjacent to developing areas in the 
county and elsewhere in the state. 

• To the extent that suitable lands and 
resources are available, BLM would pro- 
mote land exchanges to consolidate feder- 
al holdings in other environmentally sen- 
sitive areas such as the Beaver Dam 
Slope, endangered species habitats, and 
Special Recreation Management Areas, 
while providing SITLA lands or consoli- 
dated ownership in areas of greater poten- 
tial for economic return. 

• BLM would continue to give priority to 
completing remaining applications in the 
county for state quantity grants and other 
selections provided by law that would 
place economically desirable lands in the 
School Trust. 



Irreversible and/ or 
Irretrievable Conimitments 
of Resources 

The Proposed Plan would result in irreversible 
and irretrievable commitment of resources as 
follows: 

Land Disposal - Up to 18,000 acres could be 
removed from the public domain. Management 
of natural resources and public land uses on 
these parcels would be permanently lost. 
Conversely acquisitions of up to 18,000 acres 
of lands possessing important resources or val- 
ues would add to the public domain. 

Land Use Authorizations - Numerous rights-of- 
way could be granted for transportation, utilities, 
or other community purposes under Title V of 
FLPMA or R&PP grants which could constitute 
an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of 
land resources to developed use on public 
lands. 

Minerals -The extraction of beatable mineral 
resources would constitute an irretrievable com- 
mitment of resources on up to 800 acres of pub- 
lic land. Further, the potential patenting of min- 
ing claims under the General Mining Act of 
1872 would also constitute an irreversible com- 
mitment of lands to nonpublic purposes. 

Water Resources - Due to 1 8,000 acres of 
potential land disposal to enhance community 
growth and other purposes, slight increases in 
sediment and nonpoint source pollution may 
result in an irreversible degradation of water 
quality in the Virgin River sub-basin. The poten- 
tial to develop up to two reservoir sites on pub- 
lic land could result in an irreversible loss of 
present surface resource use on up to 750 acres. 

Livestock Grazing - An irreversible loss of up to 
900 AUMs could occur as a result of land 
exchanges to protect desert tortoise critical habi- 
tat and other sensitive resources. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.58 



CHAPTER 3 • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



Recreation - There would be a permanent shift 
of management emphasis tending towards more 
developed recreational use and opportunities. 
OHV designations and uses would shift to "pri- 
marily limited to existing roads and trails." 

VRM - Certain developments associated with 
land ownership changes and other authorized 
land uses would permanently impair the visual 
elements of form, line, texture, or color, primari- 
ly near and around communities. 

Special Emphasis Areas - Wild and Scenic Rivers 
segments found suitable and/or designated by 
Congress as additions to the National Wild and 
Scenic Rivers System could result in an irretriev- 
able loss of management opportunities for feder- 
al land use programs on affected lands depend- 
ing on specific management prescriptions or 
actions. The continued existence of Wilderness 
Study Areas, managed under the Interim 
Management Plan guidelines, may permanently 
preclude certain management opportunities 
which have been analyzed in the Utah 
Statewide Wilderness Final EIS. 

It is the policy of the BLM to identify unavoid- 
able adverse effects created by the Proposed 
Plan. Unavoidable adverse impacts include 
those associaled with the transfer of up to 
18,000 acres of lands under public ownership 
to facilitate additional growth throughout the 
county. Such development could: a) impact 
visual resources, b) increase potential for water 
quality degradation, c) fragment wildlife habitat, 
and d) eliminate lands from public ownership 
that are currently used by grazing operators, 
recreationists, and OHV enthusiasts. Pressures 
from resulting urban growth would continue to 
affect wildlife and native vegetation, including 
special status species. Energy and mineral 
resource extraction on public lands has the 
potential to create visual intrusions, soil erosion, 
and compaction problems. In particular, certain 
types of large scale operations such as cyanide 
heap leach mining can prove difficult in 
reclaiming the land back to natural conditions. 
Portions of the resource area left open to OHV 
travel would continue to experience scarring, 
increased soil erosion, and loss of vegetation. 



There would also be an unavoidable adverse 
impact to livestock operators as a result of lands 
transfers and measures taken to protect desert 
tortoises within Washington County on the 
Beaver Dam Slope and HCP Reserve. Loss of 
grazing privileges and AUMs could financially 
impact affected operators. Proposed mineral 
withdrawals within the HCP Reserve and two 
ACECs would proscribe opportunities for future 
mineral exploration and development in those 
areas outside of established mining claims. 
Limited potential for mineral development in 
those areas greatly diminishes the extent of the 
adverse impact. Numerous land use restrictions 
imposed throughout the resource area to protect 
sensitive resources and other important values, 
by their nature, would impact on the ability of 
operators, individuals, and groups who use the 
public lands to do so freely without limitations. 
The Proposed Plan has sought to mitigate the 
nature and magnitude of such impacts by limit- 
ing restrictions to those necessary to provide the 
level of protection needed to accomplish man- 
agement objectives and by providing alternative 
use areas for impacted activities. Virtually all 
potential unavoidable adverse impacts are indi- 
rect, long term, and difficult to quantify. 

Cumulative Impacts 

This cumulative impact analysis attempts to 
qualify and quantify the impact of past, present, 
and reasonably foreseeable actions, including 
non-federal actions, that would affect the citi- 
zens and natural resources of Washington 
County for approximately the next 20 years. 

It is clear that public lands have a significant 
and profound effect on the quality of life, econ- 
omy, and social welfare, and sensitive and irre- 
placeable resources within the county. In order 
to meet these challenges and best respond to 
public, county, and agency comment, this 
Proposed Plan has incorporated elements from 
each of the Draft RMP alternatives in an attempt 
to best respond to the significant needs, 
demands, expectations, and new information 
that was submitted during the 1 995 to 1 996 
comment period. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.59 



CHAPTER 3 " ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



It is also apparent that given current budget and 
personnel limitations, BLM cannot effectively 
manage certain areas of resource conflict in or 
near the urban interface and surrounding areas. 
This Proposed Plan would set the stage for sig- 
nificant opportunities to pursue collaborative 
and community-based planning prospects 
through cooperative management agreements, 
memorandums of understanding, and other 
instruments that facilitate cooperative manage- 
ment and partnership possibilities. 

Lands 

BLM lands play a particularly important role as 
a key factor in providing additional space for 
growth and to significantly contribute to com- 
munity infrastructure needs for such elements as 
water development and storage, transportation 
routes, utility corridors, rights-of-way, R&PP 
leases, among other things. In addition, land 
exchanges with private and state entities, in 
order to pursue common goals, are an important 
role in the BLM lands program. 

The land adjustment criteria were designed to 
assure that the needs of state, county, and local 
communities could be met while ensuring that 
appropriate management attention could still be 
paid to the protection and conservation of sensi- 
tive and irreplaceable resources. The location 
and extent of sensitive resources within the 
county have had the effect of essentially defin- 
ing where growth can and cannot occur and 
have severely limited certain growth-related 
opportunities within the county. Under the 
Proposed Plan, BLM would transfer out of pub- 
lic ownership approximately 18,000 acres and 
acquire up to 1 8,000 acres. Land transfers are 
primarily around urban centers and provide for 
continued growth and expansion opportunities 
throughout Washington County. Land acquisi- 
tions would constitute positive cumulative 
effects for several listed and sensitive plant and 
animal species as well as within Special 
Management Areas. Acquisitions would consol- 
idate public land ownership in areas that are 
currently of mixed ownership. Overall, approxi- 
mately 3 percent of the resource area would 
have enhanced management opportunities from 
land consolidation. Reciprocal cumulative ben- 
efits would also occur for state and local gov- 
ernments by gaining lands more valuable for 



development purposes and allowing an oppor- 
tunity for state inholding transfer and indemnity 
selections. 

Approximately 3 percent of public lands may 
meet land exchange criteria. In combination 
with over 100,000 acres of state land and 
256,060 acres of private land, 61 percent of 
land within the county is potentially devel- 
opable. This percentage does not include Forest 
Service, or national and state park lands, which 
are dedicated to special purposes. 

Land use authorizations from the BLM would 
continue to ensure that the local communities 
could meet growing infrastructure needs. The 
12 proposed utility corridors within the resource 
area would adequately provide for inter and 
intrastate utility and transportation needs as well 
as local community requirements. It is project- 
ed that within the proposed corridors, develop- 
ment of rights-of-way would disturb less than 1 
percent of lands within the resource area. 
Growth associated with community develop- 
ment would continue to expand into the future, 
thereby potentially impacting the open and 
undeveloped character in many areas of the 
resource area. Further, corridor designation and 
development could adversely impact minimal 
amounts of T&E or sensitive species habitat; 
however, such overall impacts would be mitigat- 
ed to prevent jeopardy findings. Corridor desig- 
nation is not projected to impact locatable, 
saleable, or leasable mineral development. 
There would be no significant cumulative effects 
from corridor designation on water resources, 
vegetation resources (except T&E), cultural 
resources, grazing management, riparian 
resources due to the nature of mitigation that 
would be required, or other conservation strate- 
gies that would be used to reduce or eliminate 
these impacts. Adverse cumulative impacts 
could be incurred to the following programs: 
recreation, VRM, and certain special emphasis 
areas. Certain recreation users would be 
adversely affected due to the miles of right-of- 
way development in areas that, in the past, were 
considered natural in character. In addition, the 
linear intrusions of the rights-of-way would con- 
stitute visually adverse impacts throughout the 
resource area. The natural quality of certain 
Special Emphasis Areas, including WSAs, Zion 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.60 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



National Park, and some ACECs could also be 
impacted where the corridors lie adjacent to the 
boundaries of such areas. 

Energy and Mineral Resources 

Overall, mineral and energy resources develop- 
ment on public lands would continue to be pro- 
vided for in suitable areas. Approximately 68 
percent of public lands in the resource area 
would remain open for fluid mineral leasing and 
development purposes under standard or special 
stipulations. Generally, the minimum limita- 
tions necessary are used to protect sensitive 
resources. For those areas that are closed (4 
percent), the occurrence potential for fluid min- 
erals is low, and future activities are expected to 
be minimal or nonexistent. The same is true for 
those areas within the resource area that are 
designated as "No Surface Occupancy" for fluid 
mineral leasing. Less than 1 percent of the land 
within the resource area has a high potential for 
fluid minerals. It is not expected that impacts to 
this industry as a result of closures would occur, 
especially in light of present leasable mineral 
activities within the resource area. 

Current saleable mineral activity provides 
important resources for local community devel- 
opment as well as for federal and state agencies. 
There are numerous mineral materials sites 
throughout Washington County. Many of them 
are visually screened in areas of high visual sen- 
sitivity on public land; however, some private 
and public sources are sometimes very evident 
in the landscape. Since sand and gravel are 
important resources within this category, they 
are generally located along wash bottoms or 
near riverine systems. Operations of these pits 
can adversely affect riparian resources, water 
quality, wildlife resources, and fish habitat with- 
out proper mitigation. Privately owned opera- 
tions do not fall under the mitigation measures 
specified by BLM under its mineral materials 
operations. While such effects are adverse, they 
generally are not synergistic and such impacts 
remain localized to specified small locations. 
Approximately 39 percent of public land in the 
resource area is closed to mineral materials 
development to protect numerous resources 
which include riparian, cultural, T&E, ACECs, 
highly visual sensitive areas, and other sensitive 
resources. The rest of the resource area (61 per- 



cent) remains open or open with restrictions for 
development subject to NEPA analysis and man- 
agement discretion. 

Approximately 91 percent of the public land in 
the resource area would remain open for locat- 
able mineral development under applicable 
standard stipulations, plans of operation, or spe- 
cific restrictions. A little over 1 percent of the 
resource area would actually incur adverse 
impacts from these types of activities based on 
the reasonable foreseeable development sce- 
nario of up to 800 acres of disturbance over the 
life of this Plan. The cumulative effect of these 
activities is expected to be localized in the west- 
ern portion of the resource area where high 
potential for locatable mineral development 
exists. Additional acres of disturbance could 
occur on both private and state lands within this 
area as well. In analyzing these operations, 
BLM would place protection on all of the criti- 
cal elements within the area. These protective 
measures would be designed to prevent any 
adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative impact 
to air and water quality, T &E species, riparian 
zones, and wildlife resources. Further, the 
cumulative effect of mining in this area (which 
includes the use of hazardous materials) is not 
anticipated to cause any significant impact to air 
or water quality based on the strict compliance 
with state and federal water law and regulation. 

Cumulative impacts associated with potential 
withdrawals of lands from locatable mineral 
entry would constitute 8 percent of the resource 
area with overall effects being minimal due to 
the low potential for mineral development of 
those withdrawn lands. Conversely, those with- 
drawn lands would provide permanent protec- 
tion for associated high value resources on 
those lands. 

Soil and Water Resources 

A myriad of federal and non-federal actions 
throughout the county have the potential for 
both positive and adverse impacts to surface 
and groundwater resources. In recognizing the 
need for extensive cooperative management of 
these resources, numerous local, state, federal, 
and private entities have begun to work together 
to maintain and sustain the conservation of this 
critical resource. The objective for water 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.61 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



resource management under the Proposed Plan 
would help protect groundwater, reduce ero- 
sion, sedimentation, and salinization, promote 
water conservation, and ensure water availabili- 
ty for the maintenance of key natural systems, 
including riparian, floodplain, and sensitive 
species. 

Of significant importance to the county and its 
communities, relative to the development poten- 
tial, is the Virgin River system. This river and its 
tributaries are integral economically, culturally, 
and aesthetically, and provide important habitat 
for several sensitive species, the management of 
which is directly tied to management of the 
river. There are numerous cooperative planning 
efforts involving the state, county, local govern- 
ments including the WCWCD, and local conser- 
vation groups that have similar objectives for the 
protection and conservation of water resources, 
particularly the Virgin River and its tributaries. 
Through the Virgin River Management Plan and 
the WCWCD water conservation plan, as well 
as statewide plans, numerous agencies and 
interested organizations are working together to 
define future use and management of this river 
system. Numerous decisions in the Proposed 
Plan under the lands programs, energy and min- 
erals programs, soils and watershed programs, 
vegetation, forestry and riparian programs, 
wildlife and grazing programs, recreation and 
OHV programs, as well as Special Emphasis 
Area programs, would have an overall positive 
effect on the protection and conservation of 
water resources within the water basin. 

Given the nature of development now occurring 
within the county, it is expected that nonpoint 
source pollution would continue to increase due 
to pesticides, herbicides, chemicals associated 
with urbanized run-off, nutrient and sediment 
loading associated with agricultural practices 
and grazing, and other surface disturbing activi- 
ties. This would continue to cause water pollu- 
tion problems within the Virgin River system 
from receiving waters. Cooperative efforts 
between federal agencies, state and local agen- 
cies, and private entities would strive to 
improve, maintain, and protect water quality for 
beneficial uses. In addition, cooperative efforts 
would also strive to prevent, abate, and control 
new or existing pollution sources throughout the 



county. Point source pollution would not be 
allowed unless in compliance with state per- 
mits. Overall, federal and non-federal actions, 
laws, regulations, and policies, are designed to 
protect culinary water, as well as other water 
sources to meet beneficial uses designated by 
the state government. However, it is recognized 
that certain forms of water degradation would 
continue to occur given the nature of growth 
and development in Washington County. 

It must be noted that the BLM does not own 
water rights to maintain instream flows needed 
to sustain critical resources. However, wherever 
possible, BLM would seek to work cooperatively 
with all authorizing agencies and affected inter- 
ests in ensuring that there is enough water avail- 
able to meet resource management needs for 
maintenance of riparian areas, listed fishes, 
recreation, livestock, and wildlife needs. 
Cooperative efforts are currently underway to 
study the requirements of water needs for these 
purposes. 

BLM recognizes the value of specific sites on 
public lands that may have the potential of 
water storage. Without site specific information 
through applications and analysis, cumulative 
impacts to natural resources from reservoir 
development are undeterminable. The Sand 
Hollow Reservoir is proposed for development 
on lands recently exchanged to the WCWCD. 
The WCWCD contracted out to complete a 
Purpose and Need Study for the Sand Hollow 
Reservoir project in 1995. In that study, it was 
determined that: "Even with conservation, 
[Washington County's] current water supply will 
no longer be able to sustain the population at 
some point depending on growth. It will run 
out between 2005 and 2010 under low growth 
and before 2005 under medium and high 
growth". In conjunction with the Water 
Conservation and Drought Management Plan 
(WCWCD, 1996), the Sand Hollow Reservoir 
and other projects addressed in the conservation 
plan would provide for the future water needs of 
the county. It is recognized that water is the 
limiting factor to growth and development in 
this desert community. The cumulative effects 
of the Sand Hollow Reservoir and additional 
water storage projects and associated facilities 
on private, state, or public lands would continue 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.62 



CHAPTER 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



to provide water for future community expan- 
sion and growtli. Growth projections and asso- 
ciated impacts as a result of future water devel- 
opment are beyond the scope of this Proposed 
Plan. 

Riparian Resources 

Riparian resources occupy only 1 percent of the 
public lands in Washington County. Neverthe- 
less, they comprise some of the most important 
ecological components of the desert environ- 
ment typical of the region. Riparian vegetation 
is crucial to the stabilization of stream banks, 
purification of flowing water, and to numerous 
entities that live in and around this ecosystem 
type. Riparian systems are critical to the integri- 
ty of natural systems, provide for desirable 
recreation opportunities, and provide for 
wildlife and livestock needs. Riparian zones 
link habitats, provide travel corridors, and sup- 
port many listed species. When in proper func- 
tioning condition, riparian vegetation lessens 
the impacts of flood events. Overall, many 
resource programs in the Proposed Plan contain 
prescriptions that are designed to maintain, 
enhance, or protect riparian resources. Surface 
disturbing activity authorized br BLM would 
require the use of best management practices 
and the standard surface protection stipulations 
in Appendix 1 . BLM policy would be to retain 
riparian resources in public ownership and to 
acquire such resources where they can be man- 
aged and protected. In general, construction of 
rights-of-way and associated development on 
public land areas would not be allowed under 
the avoidance classification, unless no feasible 
alternative is available and the action is mitigat- 
ed to the satisfaction of the authorized officer. 
Energy and mineral resources development on 
public lands would have minimal impact to 
riparian resources as such development would 
not generally be allowed within riparian zones. 
Developments on state and private lands for 
sand and gravel would continue to exist with 
riparian potential, but are generally covered 
under county and municipal zoning ordinances. 
Soil and watershed prescriptions include many 
measures designed to reduce erosion and sedi- 
mentation, thereby protecting riparian zones, 
such as OHV limitations or closures, selected 
withdrawals, and right-of-way avoidance areas. 
Many programs could consider structural and 



nonstructural improvements and practices, both 
in uplands and in riparian areas to improve 
riparian and stream functionality. Associated 
with maintaining and enhancing riparian areas, 
BLM would generally retain lands within the 
1 00-year floodplain. The WCWCD is also 
actively involved in floodplain protection and 
enhancement through the Virgin River 
Management Plan to protect and preserve water 
resources and associated riparian zones. 
Through BLM's implementation of Standards for 
Rangeland Health, overall condition of riparian 
resources are expected to be maintained or 
improved. BLM would take action when it is 
determined that certain land uses such as graz- 
ing, recreation, or OHV use are having a detri- 
mental effect on riparian resources. Actions 
could include fencing, closures, and other 
means of eliminating the impacts. Private sector 
initiatives to protect and restore riparian areas 
and floodplain zones include the Virgin River 
Focus Area Plan, the Three Rivers Trail Initiative, 
the Grafton Heritage Partnership, the Virgin Falls 
Park Cooperative Management Agreement, and 
the proposed Santa Clara River Reserve. 
Together, these initiatives would serve to cham- 
pion the protection of miles of riverine ecosys- 
tems along the Virgin and Santa Clara Rivers 
and complement the actions proposed in this 
Plan and the Virgin River Management Plan. 

Vegetation Resources 

Vegetative management decisions described in 
this Proposed Plan would facilitate the health of 
rangelands throughout the resource area. Fire 
rehabilitation efforts in suitable areas on public 
lands would prove an effective tool in maintain- 
ing species diversity and watershed integrity. 
Use of native plant species, when practical, and 
heterogeneous seed mixes in treatment areas 
would benefit both wildlife and livestock graz- 
ing, as well as improve soil retention and water- 
shed values. Short-term closures to livestock 
grazing (minimum of 1 to 2 years) in areas that 
have been vegetatively altered through burning 
or seeding, as well as limiting OHV use through- 
out much of the resource area, should function 
to restore these areas to productive sites. Similar 
rehabilitation and management efforts are ongo- 
ing in the county within Forest Service lands. 
State Lands, National Park Service lands, and 
lands within the Shivwits Indian Reservation. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.63 



CHAPTER 3 « ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



BLM's continued collaboration with Washington 
County on weed control would serve to help 
curb the proliferation of noxious weeds through- 
out the region. Invasive weeds will continue to 
create problems within the county, and efforts to 
arrest these species by private landowners and 
state, county, and federal agencies is integral to 
resolving potential future weed aggression. 

Limiting desert vegetation sales to salvage areas 
only on public lands would increase the pres- 
sure on state lands for these resources. As 
desert landscaping becomes more and more 
popular in this arid area, the native species used 
for landscaping purposes would become more 
difficult to acquire and more expensive to pur- 
chase. 

Most of the known populations of the dwarf 
bear-claw poppy and the Siler pincushion cac- 
tus occur on, near, or adjacent to private and 
State lands experiencing residential and com- 
mercial growth, intense OHV use, or planned 
future developments. Past, present, and future 
disturbances projected for private and state 
lands in this area would likely lead to a cumula- 
tive loss of dwarf bear-claw poppy and Siler pin- 
cushion cactus habitat. This Proposed Plan out- 
lines measures to promote the survival and 
recovery of these species on public lands. 
Moreover, proposed land exchanges for bear- 
claw poppy habitat on school trust lands and 
acquisitions by the Nature Conservancy could 
further protect this important habitat. 

Two state-listed candidate plant species also 
exist in heavily impacted zones near urban 
areas. Plant populations are very small, isolat- 
ed, and fragmented. As of yet, no conservation 
agreements or strategies have been approved 
with interested local, state, or government agen- 
cies to stabilize declining populations and pro- 
mote protective management. BLM's goals for 
these species is to collaboratively pursue such 
agreements and strategies. This Proposed Plan 
outlines measures to reduce impacts to habitat 
on public land so as to prevent future listing 
under the Endangered Species Act. Until such 
time that additional studies are completed and 
strategies developed, these populations are 
under continued threat due to the nature of 
development and outdoor activities occurring 



on private and state lands. 

The sensitive plant species listed in Appendix 4, 
would also continue to incur impacts similar to 
those described above. Little is known about 
these plants and their habitat requirements and 
collaborative studies would be pursued with 
help from universities and the Utah DWR to 
develop conservation strategies in the future. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

The National Park Service, Forest Service, and 
BLM have developed similar strategies for the 
protection and maintenance of wildlife habitat 
on federal lands under their respective jurisdic- 
tions. All of these agencies work closely with 
the Utah DWR to integrate population data and 
habitat management needs. Emphasis would 
continue to be placed on the maintenance of 
key habitats, including fawning, nesting, and 
crucial forage areas. It is anticipated that 
healthy, sustainable, and diverse wildlife popu- 
lations would continue to exist. However, 
tremendous growth associated with community 
development has resulted in habitat loss and 
fragmentation, as well as interruptions to 
wildlife corridors and migration routes, and 
would continue to adversely affect wildlife in 
and near expanding communities. BLM would 
work cooperatively with affected interests to 
ensure that the most critical habitat needs are 
maintained for wildlife purposes. Prescriptions 
for the protection of these species have been 
incorporated into virtually every resource sec- 
tion of the Proposed Plan. 

Of the six recovery units identified throughout 
the range of the Mojave desert tortoise in the 
Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan, two are repre- 
sented in Utah. The Beaver Dam Slope popula- 
tion is identified as an ACEC in the Northeastern 
Mojave Recovery Unit and incorporates lands 
within Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. The other 
unit, identified as the Upper Virgin River 
Recovery Unit, is completely inclusive within 
Washington County in the Red Cliffs Desert 
Reserve. 

Within the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, 
the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC links with desert 
wildlife management areas, refuges, and other 
ACECs proposed for the reminder of this unit to 
provide a contiguous recovery zone of more 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.64 



CHAPTER 3 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



that 1,750 square miles. The Beaver Dam Slope 
ACEC boundaries have been drawn to coincide 
as much as possible with the same units in 
Arizona and Nevada. Coordinated efforts 
between Utah, Nevada, and Arizona state 
wildlife agencies, FWS, adjacent BLM units in 
Utah, Nevada, and Arizona, and affected per- 
mittees would lead to the development and 
implementation of coordinated plans for tortoise 
management in the Northeastern Mojave 
Recovery Unit. To the extent feasible, consistent 
land use prescriptions across state lines are 
being designed to protect and foster recovery for 
tortoise populations in accordance with recov- 
ery plan objectives. Within the upper Virgin 
River Recovery Unit, desert tortoise habitat in 
Washington county would be enhanced by a 
combination of reserve establishment, habitat 
acquisition, habitat protection, and long-term 
species management. The reserve includes a 
vast majority of high and medium density tor- 
toise habitat within the unit. It connects with 
lower density habitat for movement corridors 
and forage areas, which should result in perma- 
nent protection of populations in this area. 
Land acquisition between the State of Utah, pri- 
vate individuals, and BLM through exchanges 
and purchases would ensure the contiguity of 
desert tortoise habitat. BLM acquisition of these 
lands removes the potential development threats 
that would be detrimental to the tortoise popu- 
lation and habitat. Fencing specific areas of the 
Reserve protects these lands from adverse urban 
impacts. Implementation of the HCP should 
substantially enhance the long-term survival of 
the desert tortoise in this unit. Without this 
HCP, there would be little prospect of long-term 
survival or recovery of tortoises within this unit. 
In conclusion, desert tortoise habitat would be 
maintained, enhanced, and protected through- 
out both Recovery Units through coordinated 
efforts and implementation of associated plans. 
Implementation of these coordinated efforts 
form an integral part of the overall strategy for 
the recovery of the Mojave desert tortoise. 

Most impacts toT&E animals would be mitigat- 
ed as required by the Endangered Species Act 
and there would not be significant cumulative 
impacts to threatened or endangered bird or fish 
species from activities authorized by permit 
from BLM. The actions within this Proposed 



Plan would protect and enhance T&E habitat 
through land acquisition, habitat enhancement, 
and restrictions on other uses such as right-of- 
way authorizations, energy and mineral devel- 
opment, OHV use, and grazing. Although the 
BLM decisions impose strict limitations and 
restrictions on OHV use in riparian areas adja- 
cent to habitat for threatened and endangered 
fish in the Virgin River and associated drainages, 
enforcement of these policies is difficult. In 
addition, private and state lands within these 
riverine systems often remain open to OHV use. 
OHV use could cumulatively impact threatened 
and endangered fish populations through the 
destruction of riparian habitat and increased 
stream sedimentation. Uncontrolled or unmoni- 
tored OHV use on private, state, or public lands 
could also impact threatened or endangered 
bird species through noise and physical disrup- 
tion, especially during nesting seasons. 

Grazing 

Overall, livestock operations within the county 
have and will continue to be heavily impacted 
by urban growth, increased outdoor recreation 
and OHV use, periodic drought, increased van- 
dalism, market fluctuations, low beef prices, and 
management constraints for protection of threat- 
ened or endangered species and other sensitive 
resources. Although a major goal of this 
Proposed Plan is to provide for the sustainability 
of the western livestock industry and communi- 
ties that are dependent upon productive, healthy 
rangelands, other decisions within this Plan will 
continue to impact the industry. Land 
exchanges and strategies to protect riparian 
resources and threatened and endangered plant 
and animal habitat and other sensitive resources 
would result in the potential loss of AUMs, frag- 
ment allotments, and impact the ability to man- 
age cohesive and economically viable opera- 
tions in and near the urban areas. Privately held 
grazing lands in such areas also will continue to 
feel the pressure from urban growth, and graz- 
ing may be retired to accommodate residential 
and commercial development. Grazing leases 
on state lands with and adjacent to incorporated 
areas will also give way to development as 
increased land values create better opportunities 
to generate revenues for the school and institu- 
tional trust fund. Cumulatively, specific allot- 
ments and specific economic impacts from 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.65 



A P T E 



E NVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



future actions at this time are unknown. 
Overall, a little over 7 percent of tiie currently 
administered AUMs could be lost from public 
administration through land exchanges and HCP 
Reserve management. More than 90 percent of 
the AUMs on public land would remain intact, 
mostly in homogenous blocks of public land, 
generally within the western portion of the 
resource area, and in those areas away from 
developing communities. In these areas, BLM 
land retention policies and goals to provide per- 
manent open space and reduce conflicts should 
provide long-term stability for existing operators. 

Application of Utah BLM's Standards for 
Rangeland Health and Cuidelines for Grazing 
Management would provide a comprehensive 
vehicle for assessing the extent to which goals 
for rangeland management, including soils, veg- 
etation, water quality, and other resources are 
being met. Where progress is not being 
achieved because of grazing impacts, corrective 
actions would be designed and implemented in 
collaboration with affected permittees. Actions 
taken to achieve the standards should improve 
grazing conditions over the life of the Plan. 

Recreation 

This Proposed Plan, in combination with other 
countywide planning efforts, provides extensive 
opportunities for partnerships across jurisdic- 
tional boundaries. These cooperative efforts are 
predicted to have a considerable effect on recre- 
ational pursuits throughout the county. Future 
plans for hiking trails, equestrian trails, moun- 
tain bike trails, and OHV trails would involve 
partnerships with private individuals and organi- 
zations, the Forest Service, Utah Division of 
Parks and Recreation, and adjoining BLM offices 
working together to develop sound recreation 
opportunities throughout the region. Limited 
resources from each of the potential recreation 
providers would be combined to focus on areas 
of greatest need. Snow Canyon State Park, for 
example, would be able to improve services to 
increased numbers of visitors, while reducing 
impacts from congestion, through cooperative 
management agreements with BLM for joint use 
and management of adjacent public lands. 
Recreational demand would continue to grow, 
paralleling population growth within 



Washington County. In addition, outside visita- 
tion to Zion National Park, Snow Canyon State 
Park, Quail Creek Reservoir, and other popular 
areas has risen dramatically over the la.st 10 
years, and will continue to do so. As recre- 
ational use increases, so will conflicts with other 
user groups and sensitive resources. The majori- 
ty of all public lands within the resource area 
would remain open for recreational use. 
Hiking, rock climbing, sightseeing, camping, 
equestrian use, fishing, hunting, and other recre- 
ational uses would continue to be accommodat- 
ed. Limitations due to resource conflict would 
restrict some activities in specific areas. 

Under the Proposed Plan, visitor expectations 
and the demand for developed recreational 
camping areas would only be partially met. 
Restrictions would be placed on the use of some 
popular undeveloped dispersed camping areas. 
BLM would not provide the camping experience 
expected by past visitors and local users in 
order to protect riparian/riverine resources and 
other sensitive values. Cumulatively, visitor 
needs and expectations would not be met 
because there would be inadequately developed 
recreation areas on BLM, Forest Service, State, 
and Zion National Park lands. Conflicts 
between recreational visitors and livestock graz- 
ing would continue in many dispersed camping 
areas throughout the county. Zion National 
Park encourages development of "appropriate 
commercial and recreational facilities in envi- 
ronmentally compatible locations outside the 
park" (USDA, N.S., 1989); however, no new 
camping facilities or developments are proposed 
for public lands due to lack of funds. Large 
camping and picnicking groups will continue to 
be underserved due to the lack of developed 
group camping and day-use areas. 

Off- Highway Vehicles 

OHV use within Washington County is project- 
ed to continue to increase well into the future. 
However, the public lands within the resource 
area alone cannot meet the OHV user expecta- 
tions and still continue to provide protection to 
sensitive resources. As communities continue to 
grow, the conflicts associated with the rural and 
urban interface will also continue. BLM would 
continue to work with local governments to be 
consistent with planning and zoning controls in 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.66 



C H A P T E R 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



order to manage this important use. Through this 
Proposed Plan, OHV use on public lands would 
generally be limited to existing roads and trails 
(53 percent of public land within the resource 
area); however, 14 percent of public land would 
be open for use without restriction. Sensitive 
management areas are more restrictive and 
require OHV use on designated roads and trails 
(18 percent of public land within the resource 
area), or closed to OHV use (1 5 percent of pub- 
lic land within the resource area). The majority 
of closed areas are generally primitive, roadless 
areas that currently have no known disturbance 
within them. The Forest Service, through the 
Dixie Forest Plan, generally leaves the forest 
lands open for use, with specific restrictions in 
meadows and other sensitive areas; however, 
the Pine Valley Wilderness Area is closed to 
OHV use. Zion National Park does not allow 
use of OHVs within its boundaries. Adjacent 
BLM lands in Arizona are all generally limited 
to existing roads and trails except in the Beaver 
Dam Mountains Wilderness Area which is 
closed to OHV use. Future collaborative efforts 
with the Dixie National Forest and the Arizona 
Strip BLM could provide regional trails for OHV 
use and enjoyment. Through collaborative part- 
nership efforts and future activity level planning, 
it is BLM's intent to work with interested entities 
to develop trail systems that promote the use of 
this popular activity in allowable areas where 
conflicts can be minimized. Ties to existing 
trails systems such as the popular Paiute ATV 
trail could be explored. 

Overall, OHV use within the county would con- 
tinue to be more regulated due to the extensive 
resource values and special management areas 
that require on-the-ground protection. In addi- 
tion, as lands continue to be exchanged out of 
public ownership in traditional OHV riding 
areas near the outskirts of communities, riders 
would be displaced into other outlying areas. 
Due to sensitive resources on public lands sur- 
rounding St. George and other urban centers in 
the county, unlimited OHV riding would be 
more restricted. On the other hand, BLM's 
OHV open area at Sand Mountain adjacent to 
the proposed Sand Hollow Reservoir Site would 
become an extremely popular riding area and, 
in the future, could become a destination point 
for OHV recreationists. 



Visual Resource Management 

All of Washington County is comprised of out- 
standing scenic resources that support a consid- 
erable part of the economy in this area. Zion 
National Park, Snow Canyon State Park, the Pine 
Valley Mountains, and the vast expanse of land- 
forms, geology, colors, elevation changes, and 
vegetation types throughout the county and sur- 
rounding lands create a unique vista that draws 
millions of visitors to the area each year. 

The past 20 years of growth within the county 
have created an extreme transformation around 
the urban and outlying transportation corridors 
from a visual perspective. The two most sceni- 
cally important routes are 1-15, which bisects 
Washington County, and Utah Scenic Highway 
9 into Zion National Park. The foreground 
viewshed along 1-15 has been substantially 
changed through the development of the Wal- 
Mart Distribution Center, new utility lines and 
underground facilities, water storage tanks, 
Harrisburg development, private sand and gravel 
pits, and other private and small residential 
developments and associated infrastructure. The 
Proposed Plan would allow for additional visual 
effects along this corridor through land transfers. 
Once in private ownership, these lands could be 
developed into residential or commercial estab- 
lishments as allowed for under county or city 
zoning specifications. 

Public land retention policies along Highway 9 
from LaVerkin to Springdale would complement 
the State Scenic Highway designation by 
restricting land transfers and other surface dis- 
turbing actions within the viewshed of this sen- 
sitive route. Development of state and private 
lands along this highway would continue to the 
extent allowed under city and county zoning 
ordinances. 

Utility rights-of-way throughout Washington 
County, as well as designated communication 
sites, would continue to impact scenic view- 
sheds. Designation of the 12 utility corridors 
would channel large inter and intrastate propos- 
als into these areas; however, scenic impacts 
would always be present. In addition, numer- 
ous rights-of-way would serve single-use pur- 
poses and could not be placed within the corri- 
dors. Mitigation would be required on all right- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.67 



CHAPTER 3 » ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



of-way proposals on public lands to encourage 
environmentally aesthetic results. 
Communication sites, by virtue of their function, 
are usually placed on mountains or hill tops in 
areas that are visually prominent. Often, in 
areas where BLM would not permit a large 
tower or communication facility due to sensitive 
scenic resources, the applicant turns to private 
or state land owners in the same area for per- 
mits. This would continue to scenically impair 
sensitive areas. 

Approximately 69,000 acres within the HCP 
Reserve north of St. George would have contin- 
ued future protection from most surface disturb- 
ing activities to protect desert tortoises and their 
habitat. This afforded protection would also 
preserve the visual integrity of this area. 
Numerous ACECs and special management 
areas proposed within this Plan would also 
serve to protect the high quality visual 
resources. 

Generally, Washington County would continue 
to experience altered foreground and modified 
middleground viewsheds with continued growth 
and development. However, outside of city lim- 
its, background viewsheds, which are primarily 
under federal or state ownership, consisting of 
extensive cliffs faces, mountains, and plateaus 
would be preserved through management 
actions within Zion National Park, Dixie 
National Forest, Snow Canyon State Park, and 
BLM management as prescribed in this 
Proposed Plan. 

Wilderness Values 

Cumulative impacts from congressional designa- 
tion or release from protective management of 
Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) were addressed 
in the Utah BLM Statewide Wilderness Final 
Environmental Impact Statement completed in 
1990. This Proposed Plan assumes that the pro- 
tection afforded to WSAs through the Interim 
Management Policy would continue until 
Congress makes that decision; therefore, cumu- 
lative effects on wilderness values from imple- 
mentation of this Plan are not addressed. 

Wild and Scenic River- Related Values 

The Proposed Plan identifies portions of five 
rivers comprising 25.7 miles on public lands in 



the resource area as suitable for inclusion by 
Congress into the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System. Specific management actions to 
protect those rivers and their values are incorpo- 
rated into this Plan. The management actions 
prescribed for protection of the suitable river 
segments would protect up to an 0.5-mile corri- 
dor along the river from surface disturbing activ- 
ities that could directly impair the values that 
made the river eligible for inclusion into the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Future and ongoing cooperative planning efforts 
with Zion National Park, Dixie National Forest, 
and other BLM jurisdictions could provide a 
comprehensive evaluation of the Virgin River 
basin and tributaries with respect to river-related 
resource values. Differing planning efforts and 
time schedules would delay completion of a 
joint suitability study report. 

The Arizona Strip Resource Management Plan 
Record of Decision (1992) identified 34.5 miles 
of the Virgin River in Arizona as eligible for 
inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System. The 1996 Record of Decision for 
the Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Study Report found the Virgin River suitable, but 
recommended a Section 5(a) study be complet- 
ed for the full length (234 miles) of the Virgin 
River within Utah, Arizona, and Nevada due to 
the complexity and controversy of the issues 
associated with the entire watershed. This study 
would require all appropriate federal land man- 
agement agencies to participate under congres- 
sional timeframes subject to adequate funding. 
Prior to making recommendations for designa- 
tion, a comprehensive study of this nature 
would clearly and consistently address all con- 
cerns related to the river. However, Congress 
must act on this recommendation prior to initia- 
tion of a Section 5(a) study. 

Approximately 1.34 miles of the Virgin River in 
Utah, contiguous to the Arizona border and 
within the Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness 
Area, would supplement and complement the 
suitability finding on the Virgin River in Arizona. 
In addition, BLM's suitability recommendations 
for the rivers above Zion National Park (Deep 
Creek/Crystal Creek, North Fork Virgin River, 
and Oak Creel</Kolob Creek) could correlate 
with river recommendations in the ongoing Zion 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.68 



CHAPTER 3 



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



National Park General Management Plan, there- 
by comprehensively enhancing the management 
of the river-related values. This is also true of 
the 8.63 miles along LaVerkin/Smith Creeks, 
adjacent to, and flowing through, Zion National 
Park. Six additional river segments that overlay 
both Park Service and public lands are currently 
under evaluation through the Park's General 
Management Planning effort. Joint conclusions 
as to eligibility, tentative classification, and suit- 
ability for the entire segments involved would 
supersede this Proposed Plan and could add 
additional suitable river miles for recommenda- 
tion to Congress for Wild and Scenic River 
designation. 

In addition, the Memorandum of Understanding 
concerning Wild and Scenic Rivers Studies in 
Utah (November 6, 1997) establishes a coopera- 
tive strategy to coordinate planning activities 
and share data among the State of Utah, Forest 
Service, National Park Service, and Utah BLM, 
as well as other governmental entities. This 
MOU provides for consistent criteria across 
agency jurisdictions when jointly evaluating log- 
ical watershed units within the state for Wild 
and Scenic Rivers studies. This approach could 
serve to provide consensus and promote 
increased community support for the Wild and 
Scenic Rivers study process. 

Socioeconomic Factors 

As BLM completes its expected transfer of up to 
1 8,000 acres of public lands out of federal own- 
ership over the life of this Plan, multiple forces 
would be brought to bear on the ability of the 
public lands to continue to meet future needs 
and expectations of local communities for 
orderly growth and public purposes. Virtually 
all of the prospective land transfers would occur 
in areas of current urbanization and rural devel- 
opment. In 20 years, few, if any, public lands 
not in special management areas or encum- 
bered with significant environmental resources 
would remain in or adjacent to growing com- 
munities. Options for lease or conveyance of 



lands for public purposes would eventually be 
severely curtailed as suitable lands are trans- 
ferred out of BLM's administration. The transfers 
would also diminish future opportunities to pur- 
sue land exchanges to achieve any one of a 
number of land management objectives. 
Communities most likely to be affected are 
those experiencing the greatest amount of 
growth and include St. George, Washington, 
Hurricane, Ivins, Santa Clara, La Verkin, and 
Toquerville. As buildout occurs on private lands 
in these areas over the next 20 to 40 years, pri- 
vate land values would increase, agricultural 
uses would give way to urban development, and 
great pressure would be brought to bear on pub- 
lic lands already dedicated to other purposes to 
accommodate additional community expansion. 
For the most part, the values of the remaining 
solidly blocked public lands would also 
increase for their contribution to dispersed 
recreation, tourism, community watersheds, 
mineral development, utility and transportation 
corridors, maintenance of existing livestock 
operations, and preservation of cultural and his- 
toric resources; also, for their role in maintain- 
ing important natural assets including open 
space, scenic values, fragile watersheds, riparian 
systems, essential habitats for wildlife and 
endangered species, and opportunities for soli- 
tude. As pressure from community growth 
increases, up to 20,000 acres of Utah School 
Trust lands that lie within the urban areas and 
along major transportation corridors in the 
county would become increasingly important 
for their potential to accommodate urban 
expansion. Additional pressure would be 
brought to bear on BLM and the School and 
Institutional Trust Lands Administration to recon- 
figure land ownership so as to make additional 
School Trust lands reasonably available for com- 
munity growth. At the same time, important 
environmental resources now under Trust 
administration would be placed in public own- 
ership for permanent management and human 
enjoyment. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



3.69 



;iv.*. 




Sound Management 

of the Virgin River 

Is Important to 

Washington County 

The Virgin River and its major tributaries 

are the Hfeblood of Washington County. 

Much of the local human population, 

most wildlife populations, and many 

important ecological systems are dependent 

to some degree on the river and its flows. 

Water within the river basin is fully 

allocated, however, and intense competition 

exists to use limited resources. 

BLM would continue to work with local 

and state agencies, landowners, and 
interested groups looking to find common 

ground on how to preserve important 

river-related resources to meet the needs of 

present and future generations. 








^ Euiilk- £articipatiaii. 



This Dixie Resource Area Proposed Resource 
Management Plan and Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (referred to as the Proposed 
Plan) has been prepared by the Dixie Resource 
Area with assistance from the BLM Utah State 
Office and the National Applied Resource 
Sciences Center in Denver, Colorado. This is 
the second in a series of three NEPA documents 
released to the public during a federal planning 
process. The Draft RMP (the first NEPA docu- 
ment) was sent to the public in October 1995 
with an associated comment period until May 1, 
1 996. Over 800 comment letters were received 
on the Draft RMP as well as numerous oral 
comments from federal, state, and local govern- 
ment meetings and public meetings held in 
December 199.5 in St. George, Hurricane, and 
Salt Lake City. Complete records of public com- 
ments are on file in the Dixie Resource Area 
Office, St. George, Utah. 

The Proposed Plan, when published and distrib- 
uted to the public, will accommodate a 30-day 
protest period. This protest period is set by reg- 
ulation and cannot be extended. In addition, a 
60-day Governor's consistency review runs con- 
currently with the first half of the protest period. 
All protests must be resolved prior to issuance of 
the Record of Decision, the third and last NEPA 
document of the planning process. The Record 
of Decision will be a concise statement of the 
decisions brought forth from the Proposed Plan. 
Among other decisions, the proposed ACEC des- 
ignations and OHV categories (limitations and 
closures) will be approved when the Record of 
Decision is signed. 

Key Coordination Events 
for the Dixie RMP 

In addition to (hose events listed in Chapter 5 of 
the Draft RMP, the following coordination and 
information meetings were held to solicit public 
and agency input. Consultation with local, 
state, and federal government agencies, organi- 



zations and individuals, was offered and sought 
by BLM in order to gather additional data and 
information as a result of comments on the Draft 
RMR 

O.S/2.3/94 Interagency meeting on wild and 
scenic rivers 

08/04/94 Open house. Salt Lake City, on wild 
and scenic river planning 

08/09/94 Open house, St. George, on wild and 
scenic river planning 

08/10/94 Meeting with Shivwits Band 

Chairman to brief and coordinate on 
Draft RMP 

09/27/94 Briefing for the State of Utah 

Resource Development Coordinating 
Committee on Draft RMP status and 
strategies 

1 0/25/94 Follow-up to briefing on 9/27/94 for 
the State of Utah Resource 
Development Coordinating 
Committee 

03/21/95 RMP briefing for Washington County 
Planning and Zoning Commission 

05/01/95 Meeting with Washington County 
Commission to receive their 
concerns on public land issues 

08/22/95 Coordination meeting with U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (FWS), Arizona 
BLM, and Nevada BLM to reach 
consistency in plans for desert 
tortoise management 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



4.1 



CHAPTER 



PUBLIC PA RTICiPATION 



1 0/1 6/95 RMP briefing for Washington County 
Commissioners, Washington County 
Water Conservancy District 
(WCWCD), Mayors, and Five County 
Association of Governments on RMP 
issues and status 

1 0/1 8/95 RMP status and issues briefing for 
federal/state interagency 
Management Oversight Group for 
desert tortoise recovery (FWS, NPS, 
DOD, Utah DWR, Arizona Fish and 
Game, Arizona BLM, Nevada BLM, 
California BLM) 

10/27/95 Published and disseminated Draft 
Dixie RMP/EIS - public comment 
period begins 

12/12/95 Public meeting, St. George, to 

receive comments on Draft RMP 

12/13/95 Public meeting. Hurricane, to receive 
comments on Draft RMP 

12/14/95 Public meeting, Salt Lake City, to 
receive comments on Draft RMP 

03/19-20 Meetings with local and state 
1996 governments and BIA to receive 

comments on Draft RMP 

03/26-27 Meetings with local and state 
1 996 governments to receive comments on 

Draft RMP 

04/1 7/95 Meeting with Grand Canyon Trust 
and interested citizens on RMP 
issues 

05/01/96 Formal public comment period 

ended - received over 800 comment 
letters and hundreds of 
verbal comments 



05/27/96 Meeting with Grand Canyon Trust 
and city officials on land disposal 
and RMP status 

06/10/96 Meeting with Utah Governor's Office 
of Planning and Budget on issues 
pertaining to plan completion and 
wild and scenic rivers 

01/21/97 Field tour with Utah and Arizona 
FWS, Utah DWR, and Arizona Fish 
and Game for tortoise habitat 
planning on the Beaver Dam Slope 

02/05/97 Meeting with Washington County 
School District on long-term school 
site options 

02/1 6/97 Briefing for Shivwits Band Council 
on land use and planning issues 
adjacent to the reservation 

02/20/97 Meeting with mountain bike commu- 
nity on bike trails and development 
strategies 

02/25/97 Meeting and field tour with Zion 
National Park officials on planning 
coordination and land use issues 
affecting Zion National Park 

03/1 1/97 Field tour and public meeting for 
land use, recreation, and planning 
issues at Land Hill 

03/27/97 Meeting with federal/state intera- 
gency Management Oversight Group 
to coordinate land use plans for 
desert tortoise issues 

04/02/97 Meeting with Utah Division of Water 
Resources on potential reservoir sites 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



4.2 



CHAPTER 4 



PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 



05/27/97 Meeting with State Parks Focus 

Group on Snow Canyon State Park 
coordination for adjacent public 
lands 

07/29/27 Meeting with WCWCD on wild and 
scenic river issues and transporta- 
tion/utility corridors in RMP 



1 1/1 9/97 Briefing of Five County Association 
of Governments Steering Committee 
on RMP status and related issues 

1 1/20/97 Meeting and field tour with Wasatch 
Trials Motorcycle Association to look 
at alternative use areas for competi- 
tive events 



09/09/97 Meeting with Utah Department of 
Transportation on transportation 
issues and planning 

1 0/1 5/97 Meeting with WCWCD on reservoir 
issues 

10/15/97 Meeting with Utah Division of Parks 
and Recreation on OHV and recre- 
ation issues 

10/23/97 Meeting with Utah Division of Parks 
and Recreation on Snow Canyon 
State Park planning coordination 

10/23/97 Meeting with Dixie National Forest 
staff (Pine Valley Ranger District) on 
planning coordination and land use 
issues 

1 0/28/97 Briefing for the State of Utah 

Resource Development Coordinating 
Committee on RMP status 
and strategies 

1 0/30/97 Meeting with planning staffs of 

Washington County and Five County 
Association of Governments on RMP 
issues and economic impacts 



1 1/97- Series of meetings with state and 
03/98 local agencies on wild and scenic 

river coordination 

01/06/98 Briefing for Southern Utah Planning 
Authorities Council on RMP status 
and issues 

01/14/98 Meeting with FWS on consultation 
issues related to the Proposed RMP 

01/16/98 Meeting with WCWCD on potential 
reservoir sites and potential impacts 
of designations under the Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act 

01/28/98 Briefing and field tour for Utah BLM 
Resource Advisory Council on RMP 
and recreation issues 

03/06/98 Briefing for state and local officials 
on wild and scenic river suitability 
recommendations 

03/06/98 Meeting with Utah Division of Water 
Resources on water issues and poten- 
tial reservoir sites 



1 1/06/97 Meeting with Washington County 
Planning staff on potential major 
transportation routes 



05/18/98 Briefing for Washington County 
Commission on RMP status and 
issues resolution 



1 1/07/97 Coordination with State Parks staff on 
OHV issues in RMP 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



4.3 



A P T E R 



PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 



Planning Consistency 

The BLM's planning regulations require that 
resource management plans be consistent 
with officially approved or adopted 
resource-related plans of other federal 
agencies, state and local governments, and 
Indian tribes, so long as the guidance and 
resource management plans are also consistent 
with the purposes, policies, and programs of 
federal law and regulations applicable to 
public lands. 



Table 4-1 outlines the planning consistency of 
the Proposed Plan with the approved manage- 
ment plans, land use plans, and controls of 
other agencies with jurisdiction in or adjacent to 
the planning area. The Dixie Resource Area will 
continue to collaborate with federal agencies, 
state and local governments, and Indian tribes 
on implementation of the RMP and on pursuing 
consistency with other plans and will move 
towards integration of such plans to the extent 
that they are consistent with federal laws, regu- 
lations, and policy directives. See the discus- 
sion in Chapter 1 for additional information. 



TABLE 4-1 • Plan Consistency Review 



NAME OF PLAN CONSISTENT PARTIALLY NOT 

Issues/Conflicts CONSISTENT CONSISTENT 



DISCUSSION 



Washington County 

GenerarPlan 

(as Amended in 1994) 

1) Water Rights 



2) Recrcalion 



3) Wild and Scenic Rivers 



County Plan calls for multiple use management to 
allow full use of water rights on the Beaver Dam Wash. 
Proposed Plan management goals do not allow for pro- 
posed reservoir site on Beaver Dam Wash. 



States that additional nonmotorized recreation is not 
needed. Proposed Plan assigns one primitive recre- 
ation area outside of WSA boundaries as closed to 
OHV use. 



Declares no streams are eligible based on lack of out- 
standingly remarkable values. Nevertheless, it calls for 
basinwide, interagency studies with local participation. 
Proposed Plan finds portions of nine rivers eligible. 



4) Mineral Leasing 



5) Mineral Materials 



Assumes T&E habitats should be left open for leasinp 
with special stipulations and NSO stipulations should 
never be applied in areas greater than 40 acres. 
Proposed Plan applies NSO to a large portion ofl&E 
habitats. 



Calls for all public lands outside of designated wilder- 
ness to be open to mineral materials with special stipu- 
lations in T&E habitats. Proposed Plan closes numer- 
ous areas including most T&E habitats. 



6) Woodland Products 



Calls for all public lands to be open for sale of wood- 
land and vegetative products. Proposed Plan selective- 
ly closes sensitive areas and eliminates sales of all 
ciesert vegetation except in salvage areas. 



7) Wilderness Inventories 



) ACECs 



Calls for no more inventories and protective manage- 
ment, including wild and scenic rivers. Proposed Plan 
imposes limited protective management on recom- 
mended river segments and envisions potential intera- 
gency studies for others. 



Says ACEC designation should not be necessary if BLM 
would adopt activity plans with local input to protect 
the resources at risk. Proposed Plan specifies 10 
ACECs for designation. Federal law requires BLM to 
give priority to designation and protection of ACECs. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



4.4 



CHAPTER 4 « PUBLIC PART 


c 


P A T 1 O N 




TABLE 4-1 (continued) • Plan Consistency Review 


NAME OF PLAN CONSISTENT PARTIALLY NOT 
Issues/Conflicts CONSISTENT CONSISTENT 




DISCUSSION 



9) R.S. 2477 Roads 



10) State Trust Land 
Exchanges 



Calls for inventory and map of all county and BLM 
roads. Proposed Plan acknowledges existence and 
importance of roads but does not attempt to resolve R.S. 
2477 assertions pending results of ongoing legal and 
administrative actions statewide. Proposed Plan agrees 
that road closures must be coordinated with county offi- 
cials and users. 



Opposes exchanges with the state that cross county lines. 
Given the statewide iMOU on State Trust inholdings 
exchanges, it would be difficult for the state and BI.M to 
avoid out-of-count)' exchanges. The Proposed Plan does 
project equal transfer and acquisition of lands within the 
County, as well as the possibility of in-county land 
reconfiguration with the State School Trust to meet goals 
for economic expansion. 



Coordination Plan for 
Washington County's Urbanizing 
Region (1997) 



Utah State Water Plan, Kanab 
Creek/Virgin River Basin (1993) 

1) Wild and Scenic Rivers 



This plan incorporates the goals, issues, and plans of the 
following communities: Ivins, Santa Clara, St. George, 
Washington, and Hurricane, and had input from Virgin, 
LaVerkin, Toquerville, Springdale, Washington Count^', 
and the Five County Association of Governments. 



Washington County Water 
Management and Conservation 
Plan(1996) 


X 


Washington County Habitat 
Conservation Plan (1995) 


X 


Snow Canyon State Park X 
Resource Management Plan 

(1998) 


Virgin River Management Plan 
(1998) 


X 


Strategic Economic Development 
Plan for the Paiute Indian Tribe 


X 


Five County Association of 
Governments: Overall Economic 
Development Plan (1995-96) 


X 



BLM acknowledges that the Stale of Ulah has concerns 
over federal reserved water rights associated with the 
Wild and Scenic Rivers Program. 



2) Reservoir Sites 



Proposed Plan is inconsistent with the following potential 
reservoir sites: North Creek, Upper LaVerkin, Fort 
Pearce, Beaver Dam, Dry Wash, Tobin Wash 



SITLA: Dixie Planning Unit 
General Management Plan (1987) 



Inconsistencies with treatment of state lands within the 
Washington County HCP Reserve 



Rockville Master Plan (1989) 



City of St. George Master Plan 
(1995) 



Dixie National Forest Land and 
Resource Management Plan 
(1986) 



Zion National Park Statement for 
Management (1994) 



BLM Shivwits Resource Area RMP 



BLM Vermillion Resource Area 
RMP 



BLM Cedar/Beaver/Garfield/ 
Antimony RMP 



BLM Kanab/Escalante RMP 



Additional city plans exist for Hurricane, Ivins, LaVerkin, Leeds, New Harmony, Sanla Clara, Springdale, Toquerville, Virgin, Washington, EntorprisL-, 
and Hildale; howev(?r, these plans were not submitted to BLM as part of this planning consistency review. 

The BLM Nevada Slateline RMP has not been complelerl In dale. This plan has been considered but is not analyzed in this consistency overview. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



4.5 



CHAPTER 4 ^ PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 



Distribution - List of 
Agencies and Organizations 

The Draft RMP listed federal, state, and local 
agencies, and Indian tribes that were furnished a 
copy of the Draft RMP. Chapter 5 of this 
Proposed Plan lists the agencies and organiza- 
tions that commented on the Draft RMR The 
following is a list of agencies, organizations, 
businesses, and interest groups that have been 
sent a copy of the Proposed Plan. In addition, 
copies have been made available to numerous 
interested individuals. 

Federal Agencies 

Department of Agriculture 

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation 

Service 

Forest Service 

Dixie National Forest 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Mines 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Land Management 

Arizona Strip Field Office 

Cedar City Field Office 

Las Vegas Field Office 
Fish and Wildlife Service 
Geological Survey 
National Park Service 
Zion National Park 
Office of Environmental Affairs 
Off-Shore Environmental Assessment Division 
Bureau of Reclamation 
Department of Commerce 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
Environmental Protection Agency 
Officer of the Solicitor 
Headquarters - U.S. LEVX 
Department of Energy 
Pentagon (Air Force) 
Army Corps of Engineers 

State of Utah Agencies 

Office of the State Planning Coordinator - 

Clearinghouse 

Department of Natural Resources 

Department of Community and Economic 

Development 

Department of Environmental Quality 



Division of Environmental Health 

Division of Water Resources 

Division of Wildlife Resources 

Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands 

Division of Indian Affairs 

Division of Water Quality 

Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining 

Division of State History 

State Institutional Trust Lands Administration 

Utah OHV Advisory Council 

Utah Geological Survey 

Local Agencies/Government 

Five County Association of Governments 

Washington County Commission 

Kane County Commission 

Washington County Water Conservancy District 

Towns/Cities of: 

St. George 

Rockville 

Washington 

Springdale 

Santa Clara 

Ivins 

New Harmony 

Toquerville 

Leeds 

Hildale 

Hurricane 

LaVerkin 

Enterprise 

Virgin 

Escalante 

Boulder 

Indian Tribes 

Paiute Indian Tribe and Local Band Offices 

Organizations and Businesses 

American Rivers 

Ash Creek Special Services District 

Bicycle Utah 

Bicycle Vacation Guides 

Bicycles Unlimited 

Bike Zion Bicycle Shop 

Blue Ribbon Coalition 

Brian Head Cross Country 

Buzzards Motorcycle Club 

Dixie Escalante REA 

Dixie Wildlife Federation 

Friends of Arizona Rivers 

Gas Resources 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



4.6 



C H A P T E R 



PUBLIC 



ARTICIPATIQN 



Glacier Guides 

Grand Canyon Trust 

Hurricane Canal Company 

National Parks and Conservation Association 

National Speleological Society 

National Wildlife Federation 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Nature Conservancy 

Pacificorp 

Pathfinder Mines 

Phillips Petroleum Company 

Pioneer Exploration 

Plata Clay Corporation 

Public Lands Council 

Questar 

Rocky Mountain ATV 

Sierra Club 

South Central Communications 

Southern Utah Endurance Riders 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 

Southwest Resource Council 

St. George Off-Road Association 

List of Preparers 



USMX, Inc. 

USRA - Buzzards Motorcycle Club 

US West Communications 

Utah Associate Municipal Power Systems 

Utah Power and Light 

Utah Rivers Conservation Council 

Utah Trail Machine Association 

Vegas Valley Four Wheelers 

Wasatch Trials Association 

Western Clay Company 

Wilderness Society 

Wizards Motorcycle Club 

Utah Woolgrower's Association 

Congressional 

Utah Delegation 

Interested/ Affected Individuals 

Permittees 

Interested Private Landowners and Other Parties 



PROPOSED PLAN TEAM 



TITLE 



ASSIGNMENT 



Dixie Resource Area: 

)im Crisp 

Lauren Mermejo 
Bob Douglas 
Kim Leany 
Ruth Robins 
Stephanie Ellingham 
Larry Gore 
Randy Massey 
Kathy Abbott 
Dave Mermejo 
R.J. Hughes 
Gardiner Dalley 



Area Manager 

Project Manager 

Wildlife Biologist 

Range Conservationist 

Range Clerk 

Natural Resource Specialist 

Geologist 

Realty Specialist 

Realty Specialist 

Natural Resource Specialist 

Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Archeologisl 



Team Leader, Socioeconomic Factors, Transportation, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, Water Resources 
Planning and NEPA Coordination, Analysis 
Fish and Wildlife, T&E Species 
Grazing, Vegetation, Forestry, Fire 
Crazing Table 

Soil, Water, and Riparian Resources 
Energy and Minerals, Hazardous Wastes 
Lands 
Lands 

Visual Resources, Wilderness 
Off-Highway Vehicles, Recreation 
Cultural and Paleontological Resources 



Utafi state Office: 

Cheryl lohnson 
Maggie Kelsey 

Holly Roberts 
Greg Thayn 
Boyd Christensen 
Ron Bolander 
Earl Hindley 
Garth Porliilo 
Suzanne Garci.i 
Sheldon Wimmer 
Ted Stephenson 



GIS Specialist 


Arc info Mappin 


Coordinator for Wilderness 


Analysis/Review 


and Wild and Scenic Rivers 




Planning Coordinator 


Analysis/Review 


NEPA Coordinator 


Review 


State Water Specialist 


Review 


T&E Coordinator 


Review 


Riparian Coordinator 


Review 


Cultural Resources Coordinator 


Review 


Recreation Coordinator 


Review 


Fire Coordinator 


Review 


Special Assistant 


Review 


to State Director 





National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado 

Kathy Rohling Editor 

Jennifer Kapus Visual Information Specia 


list 


Edit 
Cra 


ing 
phics a 


nd Layout 






Special thanks to Bob Lawsen, volunteer photographer 




DIXIE RESOURCE 


AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 


PLAN 


AND 


FINAL 


ENVIRONMENTAL 


IMPACT 


STATEMENT 



4.7 



CHAPTER 4 » PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 



ELS Availability 



Copies of this Proposed Plan will be available 
for public inspection at the BLM offices listed 
below: 

Washington Office of Public Affairs 
18th and C Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20240 

Utah State Office 

324 South State 

Information Access Center (4th Floor) 

Salt Lake City, Utah 841 1 1-2303 

Phone (801) 539-4001 

Cedar City Field Office 
1 76 East DL Sargent Drive 
Cedar City, Utah 84720 
Phone (435) 586-2401 

Dixie Field Office 
345 East Riverside Drive 
St. George, Utah 84790 
Phone (435) 688-3216 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

4.8 



BLM Lands Are Used for Public Purposes 

BLM frequently assists local communities by leasing or conveying nearby public lands for 

municipal purposes under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The Snow Canyon High School 

and Middle School complex show^n belo'w serves students in west St. George, Santa Clara, 

and oudying communities on lands formerly managed by BLM. 




' ^SwSWSMfflfsWsBiSteat' 



Public Lands Provide 
Opportunities for Motorized Recreation 



Public lands in Washington County are 
increasingly popular for motorized recreation 

including organized activities such as this 

motorbike trials event near Sand Mountain. 

Increased urbanization and environmental 

constraints present a real challenge to BLM and 

user groups in locating suitable areas for riding. 



Demand for four-wheeling on public lands 

in Washington County has exploded in recent 

years. BLM proposes to work with user groups, 

local and state governments, and adjacent 

land management agencies to coordinate the 

development, use, and management of linked- 

trail systems and open-use areas. 




:"M^^^^;aa^s^T^^?a:.i . . 



fcp' 



M 









Public Comments 

This chapter addresses the public comments 
received on the Draft RMP and BLM's response 
to those comments. All comments, written or 
oral, were reviewed and considered. Comments 
that presented new data, questioned facts or 
analysis, or raised questions or issues bearing 
directly on the alternatives, baseline informa- 
tion, or environmental analysis were responded 
to in this Proposed Plan. Comments expressing 
personal opinions or that had no specific rele- 
vance to the adequacy or accuracy of the Draft 
RMP were considered but not responded to 
directly. In addition, written and verbal com- 
ments received after the close of the comment 
period on May 1, 1996, were not addressed. 

During the comment analysis process, all rele- 
vant comments were categorized and coded 
into 1 8 areas of concern. These broad cate- 
gories are listed below by topic. Of the 1 ,600 
names on the RMP mailing list, over 800 
responded to the Draft RMP through comment 
letters and comment forms. Relevant oral com- 
ments received during the comment period 
reflected comments brought forth in writing. 
Each comment letter from the public was 
assigned a letter number and specific comments 
from each letter were organized into appropriate 
categories and given corresponding response 
numbers. 

The following categories and corresponding 
response numbers were used for this 
comment/response process: 



Off-Highway Vehicles 
General 

(General Comments) 
Areas of Critical 

Environmental 

Concern 
Visual Resource 

Management 
Lands 



OHV-1 toOHV-21 



GEN-1 toGEN-21 



ACEC-1 toACEC-8 

VRM-1 toVRM-4 
LAND-1 to LAND-29 



Riparian Resources 

Range Management 

Wilderness 

Water 

Air 

Recreation 

T&E Species 

Habitat Conservation 

Minerals 

Soils 

Socioeconomic Factors 

Fire 



fciiiiiliilliliiiiii 



RIP-l to RIP-3 

RAN-1 to RAN-6 

WILD-1 toWILD-3 

WATER-1 to WATER-23 

AIR-1 

REC-1 to REC-5 

T&E-l toT&E-12 

PlanHCP-1 to HCP-3 

MIN-1 toMlN-5 

SOIL-1 

SOEC-1 to SOEC-2 

FIRE-1 



Table 5-1 contains the assigned letter numbers, 
the name of the organization and/or names of 
those individuals commenting on the Draft RMP, 
as well as corresponding comment codes. 
Some letters did not require a response. 

TABLE 5-1 • Organizations/Individuals 
Commenting on the Draft RMP 



13 



CITY OF LAVERKIN 



FIRE-1; GEN-13, 14,15, 16,17,18,21; HCP-1,2,3; 
LAND-1 4,1 5,20,21 ,22,23,24,29; MlN-3; 
SOEC-1, 2; T&E-2,4,5, 6,7,8,9; 
WATER-2, 7,8,9,1 0,1 1,1 2, 13, 14,1 5,23; 
WSR-1 ,4,7,8,9,1 0,1 1 ,1 5,1 7-26,28; 



23 



GRAND CANYON TRUST 
lEFFMEILBECK 



ACEC-3,4; GEN-1, 4,6,7,8,9; HCP-1,2; 
LAND-2, 6,1 0,1 1,1 2, 13, 14,1 5,1 7; REC-1; 
VRM-1 ,2,3; WSR-3b; WILD-2; WATER-3 



26 



HURRICANE CANAL COMPANY 



GEN-1 9; LAND-20,26; OHV-1 3; 
WSR-7,8,1 1,14,15,17-26 



27 



INTERESTED PARTY FOR 
DRAFT DIXIE RMP 



OHV-1 ,2,3,4,8 



28 INTERESTED PARTY FOR 

DRAFT DIXIE RMP 

OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



Wild and Scenic Rivers WSR-1 to WSR-28 



29 INTERESTED PARTY FOR 

DRAFT DIXIE RMP 

OHV-1 ,2,3,4,8 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.1 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



30 INTERESTED PARTY FOR 

DRAFT DIXIE RMP 



INTERESTED PARTY FOR 
DRAFT DIXIE RMP 



LAND-3 



32 INTERESTED PARTY FOR 

DRAFT DIXIE RMP 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



33 INTERESTED PARTY FOR 

DRAFT DIXIE RMP 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



34 INTERESTED PARTY FOR 

DRAFT DIXIE RMP 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



35 INTERESTED PARTY FOR 

DRAFT DIXIE RMP 



36 INTERESTED PARTY FOR 

DRAFT DIXIE RMP 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



37 INTERESTED PARTY FOR 

DRAFT DIXIE RMP 

LAND-3 



OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



39 INTERESTED PARTY FOR 

DRAFT DIXIE RMP - SAM H. 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



40 INTERESTED PARTY FOR 

DRAFT DIXIE RMP - SHANE 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



47 



MAYOR CITY OF HURRICANE 



GEN-13,19; LAND-20;26; OHV-13; SOEC-1; 
VRM-3; WATER-9,13,16,■ 
WSR-1,7,8,10,11,14,15,17-26 

71 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 

OF UTAH -JOELTUHY 
MOAB PROJECT OFFICE 

ACEC-5,6,7;T&E-2,3; LAND-19; MIN-1,2 



74 TREES RANCH LTD. - JIM TREES 

LAND-5 

81 U.S.E.RA. REGION VIII 

CEN-1 0,1 1,12; HCP-3; LAND-26; SOIL-1; WATER-2,5,6 

91 WASHINGTON COUNTY 

COMMISSION 

FIRE-1; CEN-2Q; I.AND-20,26; OHV-3, 4,5,1 3,15; 
RAN-3,4,5,6; SOEC-2; VRM-3; WATER-16; 
WSR-1, 7,8,10,1 1,14,15 

93 ZION NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

SUPERINTENDENT 

ACEC-8; FIRE-1; CEN-1 8; LAND-1,5,6; REC-1; 
T&E-10,11,12;VRM-1,2; WILD-2; WSR-5,27 



94 DAVE ACHAMMER 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



95 DAVE ACHAMMER 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



96 CAMERON ADAMS 

OHV-1,4,8,10 



98 



JEFFREY D.ADAMS 



38 INTERESTED PARTY FOR 

DRAFT DIXIE RMP - ROBERT 



100 



CURTIS PETERSON 



102 



TOM ADAMSON 



103 



MR. & MRS. H.K. ADLER 



104 TODDAILES 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



106 J.D. ALGENLEE 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



107 



BRUCE ALLDREDGE 



42 JOLICOEUR MASONRY CO. INC. 
OHV-1,2,3,4,8 

43 JONES LAND & LIVESTOCK 
KENNETH JONES 



108 



DAVE ALLDREDGE 



110 



MAURICE AMOSA 



111 



ZACH ANDELIN 



112 BRENT & RYAN ANDERSON 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



113 C. ALLEN ANDERSON 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



114 



GEORGE M.ANDERSON 



115 



JOHN ANDERSON 



117 



MATT ANDERSON 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.2 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



118 MOE & NOEL ANDERSON 

RIP-2 



121 



VANETA ANDERSON 



122 WAYNE ANDERSON 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



123 JOHN ANDREWS 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



126 WILMAANCIUS 

LAND-3 



133 JEANNE ARNOLD 

LAND-3 



134 SUSAN ARTHEARN 

LAND-3 



135 STEVE ASALL 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



136 



KELLY ASHCROFT 



137 KEVIN ASHLER 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



141 JAMES M. ATON 

ACEC-3; VRM-1 



142 PAULAUSTCEN 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



145 



ASHLEY AVERETT 



148 



RONALD L. BAILEY 



149 FROD G. BAILLIE 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



150 



RONALD D. BAILOR 



153 



JASON R. BAKER 



154 



BRUCE BALLARD 



1 55 DAISY BALLARD 

LAND-3 



157 LARRY & NELLIE BALLARD 

LAND-3 



159 



TERINA BALLARD 



160 PENNY BANNISTER 

LAND-3 



161 



BRAD BARBER, STATE PLANNING 
COORDINATOR, STATE OF UTAH 



131 BRENT G. ARNOLD, PACIFICORP 

LAND-7,8,9; OHV-13 



GEN-1; LAND-14,20,26,27,28; MIN-4,5; 
OHV-4,13, 18,21; REC-2,3,4; 
WATER-2, 8,1 0,1 1,1 5, 17,1 8,1 9,20,21, ■ 
WSR-1, 8,1 1,12,13,16 

1 62 TOM BARBER, USRA - BUZZARDS MC CLUB 

OHV-3,11,12 



164 



CRAIG & CINDY BARLOCKER 



165 



MARK BARNES 



1 66 



MIKE BARNES 



1 68 D. BARRETT 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



169 E. SHERMAN BARRUS 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



172 



TIM BARTLETT 



1 73 JAMES A. BARTON 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



138 CANDI & J, SCOTT ASHMAN 

LAND-3 



174 



DANIEL & JAMES BEAMS 



177 MICHAEL BEARD 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



178 



AUSTIN BEARDALL 



181 



ALAN B. BEAUMONT 



182 DON BECK 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



183 JOAN BECK 

OLIV-1,2,3,4,8 



185 



MARCO BEFROY 



187 



BARBARA BELL 



JASON S. BELL 



189 JOLENE BELL 

WILD-2 



190 



JUSTIN BELL 



1 92 L. BENNETT & R. BENNETT 

LAND-3 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.3 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EiS AND RESPONSES 



194 



lEFF BENSON 



195 



DOUG BERG 



197 



ROBERT BERRETT 



198 



ED BERRY 



200 LYNN BERRYHILL 

LAND-1,3;VRM-1,2 



201 



EMMA JEAN BESS 



202 BILL AND ELAINE BEST 

OHV-3 



203 BICGERS; BARBARA , STEPHANIE & GERALD 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



205 ALLEN N. BINES 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



206 



RAY BIRCH 



209 BLAKE; KEITH, BILLIE, KADEE, WADE, 

NATHAN, TERI, ROYAL, CAROL, & JANAE 



211 



SHAWNA BLAKE 



212 



CHRISTOPHER BLAKE, MAYOR, TOWN OF IVINS 



FIRE-1; GEN-1 3, 14,1 5, 16,1 7,1 8,21; 
LAND-1 4,1 5,20,21, 22,23,24,29; MIN-3; 
SOEC-1,2; T&E-4,5, 6,7,8,9; 
WATER-2, 7,8,9,1 0,1 1,1 2, 13, 14,1 5, 23; 
WSR-1, 4,7,8,9,1 0,1 1,1 5, 17-26,28 



214 



RICHARD BOIVIE , SANTA CLARA CITY 



GEN-1 3; LAND-20,26; SOEC-2; WATER-2, 8,9,1 1; 
WSR-7,8,9,11, 

218 BLAINE BOVEE 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 

220 EDWARD L. BOWLER 

RAN-1 

224 ALBRABENDER 
OHV-1,2,3,4,8 

225 BRET AND RANDALL BRADFORD 
OHV-1,2,3,4,8 

227 JOSEPH BRADLEY 

OHV-1 ,2,3,4 



228 



STEVEN BRADLEY 



230 



PAUL BRADSHAW 



231 



BUCK BRADY 



235 



JOHN BRAWALL 



236 JIM BREWER 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



237 SHELBY BREWER 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



238 MAYOR, TOWN OF SPRINGDALE 

LAND-1; VRM-1, 2 



239 



STUART BRINGHURST 



240 



QUINN K. BRINKERHOFF 



241 LINDA BRINKLEY 

LAND-3 



243 DAVE BROADY 

OHV-5, 6,7, 8 



244 



THELLA BROCK 



247 AARON P. BROWN 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



249 GARY BROWN 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



250 



JODI BROWN 



252 BRYON & LOU JEANNE BRUNSON 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



253 



WAYNE BUATTE 



256 DONALD BURCENER 

OHV-1, 2,3,4,5, 8 



259 



TERRENCE BURNER 



262 JACK & JAN BURNS 

LAND-3 



264 



KATRINA BURNS 



265 



TOM BURROWS 



266 jAN ELLEN BURTON 

WILD-2; WSR-2; VRM-1; WATER-1 



267 JENETTE BURTON 

AlR-1; RAM-2; VRM-1; WATER-1; WILL5-2, 3; WSR-3b 



268 MILLY & GENE BUTERA 

RFC-1 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.4 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



269 DONNA & LEE CALAHAN 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



271 MARJORIE CALL, CURTIS CALL, 

CLAYTON R, CALL 



LAND-3 



272 DON CAMPBELL 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



274 
OHV-3 


JERRY & NANCY CAMPBELL 


275 


JOEY CAMPBELL 


276 


VAL RAE CANDIE 


277 


DOUGLAS V. CANNON 


279 


RONALD V. CANNON 


280 


PAUL M. CARDON 


281 


RICHARD & CINDI CARLSON 


282 


RICHARD C. CARLSON 


283 


TERRY CARLSTON 



284 CRAIG CARNER 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



287 



JOHN CARTER 



291 RICK CAVATAIO 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



292 RONALD J. CAVATAIO 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



295 ROBERT C. CHADWICK 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



296 MYNDI CHAMBERS 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



297 BLAIN CHAPPELL 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



298 KERRY CHARTIER 

OHV-5, 6,8 



299 STEVEN M. CHASE 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



300 
OHV-1,2 


STAN CHECKETTS 
,3,4,8 


302 
LAND-3 


ANITA & KELLY CHRISTENSEN 


304 


DARRICK CHRISTENSEN 


305 DAVID CHRISTENSEN 
OHV-1,2,3,4,8 


306 


KIM & CLIFF CHRISTENSEN 


307 


SCOT J. CHRISTOFFERSON 


308 


DAVE CLARK 


309 


JOSH CLARK 


310 


N. CLARK 


312 


ROBERT CLARKE 


313 
WATER-1 


MARK A. CLEMENS 
; WILD-2; WSR-6 


314 ESTELLE CLICK 
OHV-1,2,3,4,8 


315 
ACEC-3; 


SARAH CLINGER 
L-2,3;VRM-1,2 



286 CHAD JOYCE & CODY CARTER 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



316 



TERRILL CLOVE MAYOR, WASHINGTON CITY 



FIRE-1; GEN-13,14,15,16,17,18,21; 
LAND-1 4,1 5,20,21,22,23,24,29; MIN-3; 
SOEC-1,2; T&E-4,5,6,7,8,9; 
WATER-2, 7,8,9,1 0,1 1,1 2, 13, 14,1 5,23; 
WSR-1, 4,7,8,9,1 0,1 1,1 5, 17-26,28 

317 ZACH CLYDE 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



3M 



LONNIE DEAN COCHRANE 



319 



PAUL COCHRANE 



320 



JUSTIN COLE 



321 



ALTON B. COLF 



322 



AUDREY & JEFFREY K. COLF 



323 KEITH & CINDY COLLINS 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



324 



LOYD COLLINS 



325 BOYD COLTON 

OHV-5, 11 



327 RUSTY CONWAY 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.5 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EiS AND RESPONSES 



328 ADENA COOK, PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR 

OHV-1 ,4/1 0,11 



329 BLAKE COOK 

OLIV-1,2,3,4,8 



330 DEREK L. COOPER 

ACEC-2; GEN-1; OHV-2,4,10; WSR-1 



333 



SH/\YNE A. & JANAE COPELAND 



334 BRYAN CORBIN 

OHV-1 ,2,3,4,8 



335 lASON CC:)RDNER 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



338 ALMA J. COX 

LAND-3 



339 EVAN COX 

LAND-3 



340 



KYLE W. COX 



341 



LARIN COX 



342 



MARVIN COX 



343 ROBERT L. & EVELYN W. COX 

LAND-3 



344 



TRACY COX 



345 



JANET CRAWFORD 



346 



C. KYLE CRESBY 



350 



ANNE & JEFF CROUCH 



354 CUSTER 

OHV-1 ,2,3,4,8 



355 



A. D. 



356 



JIM L. DALLEY 



357 



JAMES & DEBRA DANIELS 



35g 



JOHN JACK DANIELS 



359 TOM & DOTTIE DARLING 

OHV-5 



361 CLAYTON DAUGHENBAUCH 

WILD-2; WSR-2 



362 



AUDREY DAVIDSON 



364 



GARY LEE DAVIS 



365 STEVEN ANDREA TRACY jANA 

& KARLA DAVIS 



OHV-5, 6,7,8 



369 MARIA DELA CRUZ 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



370 



ELLIOT DELTTON 



372 DONALD E. & ALTA DEMILLE 
LAND-3 

373 JUDITH DEMILLE, DWIGHT DEMILLE 
LAND-3 

375 MARY JANE & ARDELL D. DEMILLE 

LAND-3 

378 VILO DEMILLE 

LAND-3 

381 VINCE DESHAZER 

OHV-1 ,2,3,4,8 



382 


KEITH R. DEWITT 


384 


MARSHA DIAL 


385 
LAND-3 


FILOMENA DIAZ-JOHNSON 



386 SIDNEY DICKSON 

OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



387 KENNETH DIXON 

OHV-5, 8 



389 JOHN DODDY 

OHV-1 ,2,3,4,8 



390 PAMELA M. DOERR, JOSEPH R DOERR 

LAND-3 



392 JOHN DOMBEK 

WILD-2, 3; WSR-3b 



393 



WAYNE DOMKE 



394 



STEVEN DONE 



396 ROGER L. DUBA 

AIR-1; RAN-2; WATER-1; WILD-2, 3; WSR-3b 



399 



JIM DYER 



400 



MARY EAMES 



DIXfE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.6 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



401 



RUSSELL EARDLEY 



402 EARDLEY ; JOYCE ROBERT KYLE 

DUSTIN & KIM 

404 STEVE &TAMRA EBERHARD 

LAND-3 

406 PAUL K. EDMUNDS, WESTPRO SPORTSWEAR 
OHV-1,2,3,4,8 

407 TIMOTHY P. & PENELOPE EICHER 
REC-1 



415 LEEI. ESPLIN 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



416 



LEMOYNE TERRANCE LOLA ESPLIN 



417 ED EVEL 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



418 M. EVENSON 

LAND-3 



422 PAIGE EYNON 

AIR-1; RAN-2;VRM-1; WILD-2; WSR-3b 

423 R.C. FAREWELL 

RAN-2; VRM-1; WATER-1; WILD-2; WSR-3b 

424 JEFF FARLOWE 
LAND-3 



426 R. FAULKNER 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



428 



MICHELLE & CLARK R. FAWCETT 



429 THERESE FEINAUER, SCOTT NARCOMBE 

LAND-3 



430 SANDY FERRELL 

WILD-2; WSR-2 



431 



DANIEL FIESELER 



432 



BRANDON FIFE 



435 DEREK FIRTH 

OHV-5 



436 PAUL & MARGUERITE FISCHER 

REC-1 



437 CARLTON R. FISH 

REC-1 



438 STEW FISH 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



440 



CARLOTTA & WILLIS FLEMING 



442 TIMOTHY FLOOD 

FRIENDS OF ARIZONA RIVERS 



WSR-2 



443 



KEVIN FLOWERS 



444 MORRIS R. FLYCARO 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



446 



DAVE FORD 



448 



SCOTT FOREMASTER 



449 ROGER FOSTER 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



450 RON FOWLER 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



453 ZACHARY FRANKEL, UTAH RIVERS 

CONSERVATION COUNCIL 



WSR-2 


3c,5 


455 


SLOANE FREEMAN 


456 


GINGER FREI 


459 


KELLI FRIKAS 



460 K. SUSAN FRY 

LAND-3 



461 



ROBERT C. FURTEK 



AIR-1; RAN-2; VRM-1; WATER-1; WILD-2, 3; 
WSR-2,3,3b,3c 



468 



DOUG ARNER 



469 



JOHN A. & SANDRA GARNER 



471 



TIM CAROFALO 



474 RICHARD L. GARY 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



475 BOB GASTON 

OHV-3 



478 BARBARA GERMAIN 

WILD-2, 3 



481 COLLEEN GIBBENS 

LAND-3 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.7 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



482 CHRIS GILBERT 

OHV-1 ,2,3,4,8 



483 DAVID GILBERT 

OHV-1, 2, 3,4,8 



485 



JOSH GLAZIER 



487 SUMNER & GAIL GLEASON 

OHV-1, 2, 3,4,8 



492 MICKEY GOODWEILER 

OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



494 DALE GRANGE 

OHV-3, 4,5, 7,8,10 



495 GLENN B. GRAUS 

LAND-3 



497 JEFF CREENWELL 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



499 MIKE GREENWOOD 

OHV-1, 2,3,4,8 



500 



EARLE GREGORY 



503 ROBERT GROVE 

OHV-5,6,7,8 



516 R.JUDD MORGAN 

OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



516 



LANCE & MARVENE GUBLER 



517 



LEON BROOKE & TERESA GUBLER 



518 



LYMAN W. GUBLER 



520 



RONALD WAYNE GUBLER 



522 STEVE GUERDSEN 

LAND-3 



488 


DAVID J. & MARLA GLEDHILL 


489 
LAND-3 


PAMELA GLEN, RON LEARL 


490 


EDYTHE GOLDEN 


491 DAN GOOD 
OHV-1 ,2,3,4,8 



524 
WSR-2 



ED CUNDERSON 



525 ROY D. GUNNELL ENVIR. SCIENTIST 

UTAH DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY 

GEN-1; LAND-1 4,20,26,27,28; MIN-4,5; 
OHV-4,8,13,21; REC-2,3,4; 
WATER-2,8,1 0,1 5,11, 17,18,19,20,21; 
WSR-1,8,11,12,13,16 



526 



KOBY ROSETTA &TJ. GURULE 



527 OSCAR GUTIERREZ 

OHV-5,6,7,8 



529 RON HACK 

OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



531 JEREMY HADONA 

OHV-1, 2, 3,4,8 



533 



DAVID HAFEN 



538 CHRIS HALL 

RAN-2; VRM-1 ; WATER-1 ; WILD-2; WSR-2, 3b 



539 



CLAIR W. HALL 



540 DARWIN HALL 

GEN-1; RIP-1 



504 KIM E. GROVER 
OHV-2,5,n 


505 


ANNA MAY GUBLER 


506 


BLAIR GUBLER 


509 DEMAR GUBLER 
OHV-1 0,1 3 


510 


DOUG GUBLER 


514 
OHV-1 4 


KYLE GUBLER 



541 DARWIN HALL, ASH CREEK SPECIAL 

SERVICES DISTRICT 



543 



IKE HALL 



545 



MAC J. HALL 



CEN-19; LAND-20,26; OHV-1 3; 
WSR-7,8,1 0,1 1,1 4,1 5,1 6,1 7-26 



546 


MORGAN HALL 


548 


SHIRLENE & DARCEY HALL 


551 
RAN-2 


KEITH HAMMOND 
WATER-1; WILD-2; WSR-3,3b 



552 JULIE & JIM HANCOCK 

LAND-2; VRM-1 12 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.8 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



554 FRANK HANCEMA 

LAND-3 



556 EVELYN HANS 

LAND-3 



557 L.N. HANS, PAUL D. HANS 

LAND-3 



558 C. SCOTT HANSEN 

WSR-2 



559 



MICHAEL W. & JAN HANSEN 



560 



SEAN HANSEN 



563 



TODD HANSEN 



566 BOYD S. HARDER 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



567 JANE HARDIN 

LAND-3 



573 


JOHN 1 lARRELSON 


574 
LAND-3 


BERNARD HARRIS, ELAINE HARRIS 


576 


STEVE M. HARRIS 



577 TED HARRIS 

CEN-5; RAN-2; WATER-1; WILD-2; WSR-3b 



578 



TY RICO HARRIS 



579 FRANKLIN S, HARRIS JR. 

LAND-3 

581 PAT HARRY 



582 



TAWONA HART 



585 



BILL HATCH 



590 BRIAN HAWTHORNE 

OHV-1, 2, 3,4,5,8, 10 



591 



KAREN & MIKE HEATFI 



592 


STEVEN R. HEATH 


594 


WELDON & VIVIAN HEATON 


597 


JEFF D. HEF 


600 
WSR-3 


TIM HEIPLE 


602 DALE HEMENWAY 
OHV-5,6,7,8 


604 


ROBERTA HENDERSON 


606 


WILLIAM HEYWOOD 


607 


ROBERT HIBBS 


609 


DON C. HICCINS 


610 


ORVILLE HIGH 


611 KEVIN D. & DENISE HICLEY 
OHV-5, 6,8,10,11, 12 


613 


HOLLY & JEREMY HINTON 


614 
LAND-3 


CRAIG HIRSCHI 


615 
LAND-3 


GARLAND C. HIRSCHI 



618 BARBARA HJELLE 

REC-la 



619 



ZACK HOEGER 



620 
OHV-3 



DANAB HOGG 



622 MIKE HOLLEY 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



584 MARK HASKIN, CEDAR RIDGE SPORTS 

OHV-5,6,7,8 



623 



DEAN HOLLIDAY 



625 BILL HOLMES 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



586 THE HONORABLE ORRIN HATCH 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

588 SHARON & DAVID HATFIELD 

LAND-3 



626 HOLMSTEAD: KIP, COLTON, MICHELLE, 

KIRK CBUCK, DEAN & BLAKE 



627 DONNA HOLT 

ACEC-3; L-1; VRM-1,2 



631 CHRISTOPHER MORGAN 

OHV-2,4,11 



632 FRED HORTON 

OHV-5,6,7,8 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.9 



CHAPTER 5 • PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



633 WAYNE & GAIL HOSKISSON 

AIR-1; RAN-2; WILD-2; WSR^3b 



634 



LLOYD HOWARD 



OHV-2, 3,4,8,1 0,1 1,1 6,1 8,1 9 



639 EVERETT HULSEY 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



640 



CRAIG & MICHAEL C. HUMPHRIES 



641 



DARRELC. HUMPHRIES 



642 



JAMES ALLEN HUMPHRIES 



643 



VIRGINIA & DON HUNDLEY 



647 JIM HUNTLEY 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



648 JON HUNTLEY 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



649 GINA K. HUPKA 

LAND-3 



WSR-2,3a,3b,3c,4 



653 GENE ILLEY, JR 

OHV-4,7,8,10,12,17 



654 



DAVE IMLAY 



i55 



CORY IPSON 



656 



DORIS & JON ISOM 



LAND-25,26 



659 



DAWN & WELLS D. JACKMAN 



661 



MR. & MRS. RANDY JACKSON 



662 



COLE TED jACOBSEN 



663 I. JAMES 

LAND-3 



635 A. BRECK HOWELL, DEBRA HOWELL 

LAND-3 

637 RAINER HUCK 

UTAH TRAIL MACHINE ASSOCIATION 



664 DELMAR JANSON 

LAND-1; RAN-2; VRM-1; WATER-1 ; WILD-2; WSR-3b 

665 RICK JENKINS 
OHV-5, 6,7,8 



638 ROBERT E. & DORIS HUFFORD 

LAND-3 



652 PAMELA HYDE, AMERICAN RIVERS/ 

SOUTHWEST REGIONAL OFFICE 



658 COLIN W.JACK ENGINEERING MGR. 

DIXIE ESCALANTE REA INC. 



660 LEWIS JACKSON 

AIR-J ; VRM-1 ; WATER-1 ; WILD-2, 3; WSR-1 



666 

LAND-3 


JOE JENNINGS 


667 
LAND-3 


R. DREWJENNINGS, U. JENNINGS 


668 
OHV-1,2 


LAYNE JENSEN, AIMEE PATTERSON 
,3,4,8 


669 MICHELLE JENSEN 
OHV-1,2,3,4,8 


670 

LAND-3 


MILDRED M. JENSEN 


671 
OHV-1,2 


PAUL& L.C.JENSEN 
,3,4,8 


672 


PAUL K. JENSEN 


673 


PERRY JENSEN 


674 


R.J.JENSEN 


675 


MIKEJEPSON 


676 


PAT M. JEPSON 


677 


W.W.J EPSON 


680 


KENNY JESSOP 


681 


HANSJESSUP 


683 
OHV-1,2 


BILL JOHNSON 
,3,4,8 


686 
OHV-1,2 


DAVE JOHNSON 

,3,4,8 


687 


DON, KRISTY, CHAD & PAM JOHNSON 


688 


GLEN R. & WENDY JOHNSON 


689 


HEATH, SHARON & CODY JOHNSON 



690 JAMES JOHNSON 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.10 



CHAPTER 5 • PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



692 



JOSEPH & MARY JOHNSON 



693 KRIS JOHNSON 

OHV-1 ,2,3,4,8 



694 



MARK JOHNSON 



697 



RICHARD JOHNSON 



698 



TREVOR JOHNSON 



699 WM. MAX JOHNSON 

OHV-8,10 



703 



DEVON & SHARI JONES 



704 DON JONES 

ACEC-3; L-1,2;VRM-1,2 



705 G.R. JONES 

OHV-1, 2, 3,4,8 



707 J.JONES 

LAND-3 



708 JOHN JONES 

OHV-5,8 



709 



KELLY JONES 



710 



KELLY JONES 



711 



ROGER JONES 



712 STEPHEN JONES 

OHV-1, 2, 3,4,8 



713 



TRAVIS & CHRIS JONES 



715 COBYIORDAN 

GEN-4; L-1,2,3; 



720 JAMES JUDD 

OHV-8,10 



722 JASON JUSTICE 

RAN-2; WSR-2,3(J 



725 



STACEY KEJTH 



727 JOANN & RICHARD KELLER 

LAND-3 



729 JOE KEMPER 

OHV-1, 2, 3,4,8 



730 



BRYAN & SHERI KENT 



731 
OHV-5 



MAXINE KESSLINC 



701 CHARLES & MARY LOLJ JONES 

OHV-1, 2,3, 4,8 



732 



GENE F. & MARY KIHOLM 



734 MARION KINGERY 

OHV-1 0,11 



735 GEORGE KINNEY 

OHV-1, 2,3, 4,8 



736 



BOBBI KIRK 



739 



HYLAN F. KIRKLOME 



741 RAY & CELEST KLETT 

OHV-3 



743 



TIM KLINGONSMITH 



744 



TONl & KIRT KLINGONSMITH 



745 KEN KNIGHTON 

OHV-1, 2, 3,4,8 



747 



JAMES A. KOCH 



748 



COLLEEN KOHLER 



749 BILL KRAUSE 

OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



750 LARRY KREIDER, M.D. 

OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



719 BECKY, ROBERT, ZACHARY JOSETT 

OHV-1, 2, 3,4,8 



751 



STACI C. & DANIEL J. KROFF 



753 
REC-1 



ELAINE LILA KUNLE 



754 



BARBARA R. KURTZEHORN 



755 



GARY KWLEGS 



723 ZELDA KAY RICHARD A. KAY 
LAND-3 

724 JOSEPH KEEZER 
WOLVERINE PRODUCTIONS 



756 ION L. LANDEEN, LOGAN MEDICAL CENTER 

OHV-1, 2, 3,4,8 



757 



LAURA LANGSLIN 



759 MAXINE LANTZ 

OHV-1 ,2,3,4,8 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.11 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



761 


DONALD L LARKIN 


762 


HEIDI LARSEN 


763 
LAND-3 


M. LARSEN 


764 


MATTHEW F. LARSEN 


765 


RON LARSEN 


766 


SHANON LARSEN 


767 TRUDI LARSEN-THURLEY 
OHV-1,2,3,4,8 


769 


KENT LARSON 


770 


MCKAY LARSON 


772 


GREG & PATSY LAST 


775 
WSR-3d 


MIKE & LAURA LAYTON 


776 CHARLES LEACH 
OHV-1,2,3,4,8 


777 MR. & MRS. JOHN LEAO 
OHV-1,2,3,4,8 


779 


GLENN & BRENDA LEAVITT 


781 


RICHARD F. LEAVITT 


784 


BRANDI LECLBRITTEN 


785 BOB & SHAD LEE 
OHV-5, 6,7,8 


787 
LAND-3 


C.J. LEE 


789 


GAVIN LEE 


790 


JAY LEE 


791 
LAND-3 


JIM LEE 


792 


L. LEE 


793 RICK R. LEE 
OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



794 RUSSELL LEE 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



797 



SMITH LENY 



798 ANGELA LEOX 

LAND-3 



799 



TRUMANN M, LESLIE 



800 



JOSH LEUCIRION 



801 DAVE LEWIS 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



803 



JAMES V LEWIS 



804 VANETA & F. LEON LEWIS 

LAND-3 



805 



WARDA LEWIS 



807 CHRIS LINDFORS 

VEGAS VALLEY FOUR WHEELERS 



OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



RANDY LINDSEY 



WILD-1 



810 LIVINGSTON 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



811 



RICKY LOGAN 



812 ALAN LONG 

VRM-1 



813 TONIE LOUDER 

OHV-2,4,5, 8,9,1 0,1 1,16 



814 KEN LOVELAND 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



!1! 



M.A. LUCSEE 



823 



L. LUVILDE 



824 JEFF & SUE LYIJNEN 

OHV-3 



826 



JOSHUA LYN 



829 



GREG MACKUEY 



830 



JULIE MACKUEY 



831 GEOFF & LEE MADSEN 

OHV-5, 8 



832 



RICK MADSEN 



833 



RON MADSEN 



835 EDWARD MAINLAND 

AIR-1; WILD-2,3; WSR-3 



837 



SANDY & BRUCE MALMGREN 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.12 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



838 



DENIEl E & WAYNE MALNAR 



839 



KEN & lULlE FORD MALONEY 



840 SAMI MANNS 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



841 



BROT MARCHAL 



842 



RICK MARCHAL 



843 



SCOTT & KIM MARCHAL 



844 KIMMARCHBANKS 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



845 



STEVE MARKS 



847 



MIKE MARTIN 



848 DAVID MARTIN DALE 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



852 DAN MATHENEY 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



853 ANTHONY F. MATTERN 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



854 TONY MATTERN 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



855 



DAVID R. MATTHEWS 



856 



SUE & ROBIN MATTHEWS 



861 KIM MAZZOLA 

OHV-3 



CEN-17 



864 RUSSELL MCCOY 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



865 PATRICK MCCUE 

T&E-1; WSR-2,5 



866 RON MCDADE 

OHV-5,6,7,8 



867 JOHN MCGREGOR 

OHV-5,6,7,8 



869 HEIDI MCINTOSH, SOUTHERN UTAH 

WILDERNESS ALLIANCE 

AIR-1; L-1; OHV-5,20; RAN-2; VRM-1; 
WATER-1,2; WILD-1,3; WSR-2,3,3b 



870 



JEREMY MCKENZIE 



871 DAN MCKINNEY 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



872 TERRY MCKNIGHT JANA MCKNIGHT 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



876 ALISON MCNABE 

WILD-2; WSR-2 



846 DENISL & TIMOTHY L. MARTIN 

RIP-2 



878 SCOTT MCPHERSON 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



879 



JIM MCRIMMON 



880 STAN MCVEY 

OHV-5,6,7 



881 GIL MEACHAM 

OHV-4,5,8,11 



882 



JAY MECHAM 



884 



JACK MEDAU 



886 OLEH MELNYK 

OHV-5,8 



887 HARRY MELTS 

OHV-5,10,11,12 



M. MEMAHA 



863 MCKENSIDAN MCARTHUR 

MAYOR CITY OF ST GEORGE 



LAND-3 



889 DAVID M. MERRIAM 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



891 THOMAS J. MESSENGER 

AIR-1; RAN-2; L-1; VRM-1 ; WATER-1; WILD-2; WSR-3b 



892 ELNORA MESSINA 

LAND-3 



894 



CHRIS & MARION METZ 



895 



JOHN R. MICHELS 



897 ALLEN MILLER 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.13 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



BILL MILLER 



LAND-3 



899 



DARRELL & RANONA MILLER 



900 DON R. MILLER 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



901 LADESSA MILLER 

LAND-3 



902 MARIAN B. MILLER 

LAND-3 



903 WALTER E. MILLER 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



904 



RANDY & JILL MILLS 



912 



ESTES MOORE 



915 JAIME MORENO 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



918 GENEVA MORTENSEN 

LAND-3 



920 PETE MORTENSEN 

LAND-3 



921 



JACQIUE & C. RANDY MORTENSON 



922 SEELI MORTENSON 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



924 



JOE MOTTEN 



927 



LOGAN MURPHY 



928 MIKE MURPHY 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



929 GLENN L. MURRAY 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



932 



CRYSTAL NEIDER 



933 NEIL 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



935 ERIC NELSON 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



936 JEFFERY NELSON 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



937 LORIE M. NELSON 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



939 



NELSON; KAYE, ROBERT, KANDICE, ROBIN 



940 DAWN NGO 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



943 ANN NIELSON 

LAND-3 



945 



GREGORY NIELSON 



946 



KIMBERLY STETSON, JOHN NIELSON 



947 



PHIL &ANN NIELSON 



948 TOM NIELSON 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



950 JESSICA NORTHRUP 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



951 CAMERON NORTON 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



919 HENRY MORTENSEN, LYLE MORTENSEN 

LAND-3 



955 DEBI & MARK OCHOTZKI 

LAND-3 



956 DALE & LEA OEHME 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



959 



LINDA OITA 



960 DAVID OKERLUND 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



961 ED OLDROYD 

OHV-1 1 



962 KELLY OLDROYD 

OHV-5, 10 



963 ROBERT E. OLDROYD, ED OLROYD 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



964 



CLARK OLDS 



965 



CLAYTON & SUE S. OLDS 



966 FRANK OLIVER 

OHV-5,6,7,8 



967 



R. R. OLSEN 



968 



BOBBY OLSON 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.14 



CHAPTER 5 



PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



969 LYNN OLSON 

WILD-2 



970 MEG & ROBERT W. ORTON 

LAND-3; VKM-2 



972 



D. OTON 



973 FLORIN & LANETTE OWENS 

WASATCH TRIALS ASSOCIATION 



OHV-5, 6,7,8 



974 PARK OWENS 

OHV-1 ,2,3,4,8 



975 RUSSELL PACK 

T&E-1; WSR-2,4,5 



976 



RICK A. PAHM 



977 lOHN PAMPERIN 

AIR-1; RAN-2; VRM-1; WATER-!; WlLD-2,3; WSR-2 



978 SCOTT PAPINEAU 

OHV-3 



980 TIMOTHY PARKINSON, VICKI PARKINSON 

LAND-3 



981 
OHV-1 



)AY PARKS 
,2,3,4,8 



983 TODD W. PATRICK 

RAN-2; VRM-1 ; WATER-1 ; WILD-2; WSR-2,3b 



984 AIMEE PATTERSON 

OHV-1, 2, 3,4,8 



985 RODNEY PATTERSON 

OHV-1, 2, 3,4,8 



989 



CHRIS PEARCE 



990 
OHV-2, 



CAROL & IVAN PEARSON 



5,6 



991 



NOLAN PEARSON 



994 MR, & MRS, DAVID A. PEGGAR 

OHV-1, 2,3, 4,8 



996 



STEVE G. PERRY 



997 ALAN ). PETERSON 

OHV-1,2, 3,4,8,9,10,11 



998 C, ALLEN PETERSON 

OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



999 CLARK PETERSON 

OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



1005 



BRIAN PEYTON 



1008 MARTIN & BEVERLY PIERCE 

OHV-1 



1 009 CLINT & MATT PIXTON 

OHV-1, 2, 3,4,8 



1010 



BRETT POLSON 



1011 



STEVE/RED BEAR POSITANO 



1 01 2 CHARLES & MARGARET POWERS 

LAND-3; VRM-1, 2 



1016 



DOUG PRISBREY 



1017 



TYFFANY PROFFITT 



1018 M. SHANE PRUETT 

LAND-3 



1025 JAY L, RAMSAY 

DIXIE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT 



LAND-20; WSR-14 



1028 LI LA GAY READ, JACK K. READ 

LAND-3 

1033 WILLIAM RECLAND, ELEDA RECLAND 

LAND-3 



1034 



BRAD REMUND 



1035 K, RENQUIST 

LAND-3 



1037 DALE REYNOLDS 

OHV-1, 2, 3,4,8 



1 039 TERRY & JOYCE REYNOLDS 



1041 ARLIN RICE 

OHV-1, 2,3, 4,8 



1044 



PHYLLIS & GARY RICHINS 



1045 



A. RIDER 



1047 JODY RILEY 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.15 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



1050 BRYAN ROBERT 

OHV-1 ,2,3,4,8 



1051 



JESSIE ROBERTS 



1052 LES ROBERTS 

OHV-1, 5, 10, 11 



1053 



RUSTY ROBERTS 



1055 BLAINE ROBERTSON 

OHV-1, 2,3,4,8 



1056 



NICOLE ROBINSON 



1058 GLENN E. ROEHL 

OHV-1, 2,3, 4,8 



1060 JAMIE ROGERS 



1061 jIMMIE C. & MARYANN ROSENBRUCH 

GLACIER GUIDES INC. 



LAND-4 



1062 



A. ROSS 



1064 GUY ROWE 
OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



1066 JIM RUCH 
LAND-6 



1068 DOUG RURFR 
OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



1070 BILL SANDERS 



1071 



MACK & BARBARA SANDERS 



1073 BURTON & ANNA SANT 

LAND-3 



1075 lOHNSAVARESE 

AIR-1; RAN-2; VRM-1; WATER-1; WlLD-2,3; WSR-3,3b,3c 


1077 


JAMES L. SCHAEFER 


1078 


JOSHUA SCHEAR 


1079 

GEN-2,3 


DAVID SCHEIN 


1081 


DON F. & CRISTI SCHMUTZ 


1082 


JEFFREY D. SCHMUTZ 


1083 


DANNETTE &THELMA SCHOLZEN, 
KEITH SCHOLZEN 


1 085 


KEN SCHULTZ 



1086 



RAYMOND F. SCHU REMAN 
BACKYARDS OF AMERICA 



OHV-1, 2,3,4,8 




1090 


BOB SCOW 


1091 


REED 


SCOW 



1094 LYNDA SENTHER 

LAND-3 



1095 



RICHARD SEORCSLY 



1 098 MARK & TRICIA A. SEYBERT 

OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



1099 ELLEN SHACKELFORD 
OHV-8 



1100 



RENAE & AMBER LEE SHAFFER 



1101 



BEV & KEN SHAMO 



1102 



CHRIS SHAMO 



1103 



KEVIN SHAMO 



1104 



KEN SHANN 



1105 GREG T SHARP 

OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



1106 BILLSHARPE 

OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



1108 



STEPHEN N. & TRAVIS SHEFFIELD 



1110 



RUSSEL D. SHROYER 



1112 



R.D. SHURGUND 



1113 GARY SIGLER 

OHV-1, 2,3, 4,8 



1114 LARRY SIGLER 

OHV-1 ,2,3,4,8 



1115 ROY W. & ELIZABETH E. SIMMONS 

LAND-3 



1116 CHRIS SIRCELLO 

LAND-3 



1118 EDWARD M. SKURLZEBORN 



1119 



BRYCE SLACK 



1120 



SHERWIN S. SLACK 



1123 CAROLYN SMITH 

OHV-5,6,7,8 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.16 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



1124 GLEN SMITH 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1125 



GREG S. SMITH 



1 127 JAMES N. SMITH, HELEN K. SMITH 

LAND-3 



1128 



JEANIE & GEORGE SMITH 



1129 JERRY W.SMITH 

ACEC-1; OHV-1, 4,8,9,1 0,1 5 



1 130 JOANNE & RONALD SMITH 



1131 KELLY SMITH 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



1132 SMITH; JENNIFER, JIM, CAMELIA 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



1134 ROBIN SMITZER 

LAND-3 



1136 



RUSSELL SNEDESER 



1137 DAN B. SNEPP 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1138 



MIKESNODGRESS 



1141 BARRY SOCHAT 

ACEC-3; LAND-1,3;VRM-1,2 



1142 



JOE SOMERSVILLE 



1143 MARY SOPER 

LAND-3 



1144 BRAD SORENSON 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1145 JAMES SORENSON 
OHV-5, 6,7,8 



1148 



KIM SPENDLOVE 



1151 JOHN SPEZIA 

AIR-1; RAN-2; VRM-1; WATER-2; WILD-2,3; WSR-2 

1152 LEGRANDE SPILSBURY, SPLISBURY LAND AND 
LIVESTOCK CO. 



1153 WADE SPIVEY 

OHV-5, 6,7,8 



1154 RICHARD SPOTTS 

WILD-2,3b 



llf 



DON S. SQUIRE 



1156 RICK & DONNA SQUIRES 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1158 DANIEL STANEVICH 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1160 KATE & JIM STARLING 

ACEC-3; LAND-1;V-1; VRM-2 



1161 IVAN STELTA 

OHV-5,6,7,8 



1164 RON D. STEPHENSON 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1165 



LINDA & DAVID J. STEVENS 



1 1 66 



YVONNE STEVENS-BERRY 



1167 



DARCY STEWART 



1170 


ROBERT H. STICKLER 


OHV-1,2,3,4,8 


1171 


R.M. STOKES 


OHV-1 


,2,3,4,8 


1172 


TED STOKES 


OHV-1 


,2,3,4,8 


1174 


HAROLD D. & MARY LOU STORM 


OHV-1 


,2,3,4,8 



1175 



COLLIN & JUSTIN STOUT 



1179 



SHAWN CORRY, CASEY STOUT 
LINDA STRATTON 



1182 



CRAIG & CONNIE STRATTON 



1183 



DONALD STRATTON 



1184 



KADE STRATTON 



1185 



LORRY STRATTON 



1186 



SHAUNA & LAYNE B. STRATTON 



1 1 87 



STEVEN B. STRATTON 



1189 



BRAD STRINGHAM 



1 1 90 GREGORY STRINGHAM 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1191 WM. PI IILLIP STRITTMATTER 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.17 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



1193 


KRIS STUDER 


1195 


MIKE STURDEVANT 


OHV-1, 2, 3,4,8,1 0,11 


1 1 96 


ALANSUNDQUIST 


OHV-5, 6,7,8 


1197 


GLEN W. SWANK 


OHV-1, 2 


3,4,8 


1198 


JOHN R. SWANSON 


WILD-2; 


WSR-3C 


1199 


NANCY SWDELLE 


LAND-3 




1200 


ViCKI SWITZER 


LAND-3 




1201 


MONTY TACKER 


LAND-3 




1202 


NEAL TAKACH, KATHERINE SMITH TAKACH 


LAND-3 




1204 


TERRY TATE 


1205 


RICHARD TATTON 


OHV-5, 8 




1207 


LAREE TAYLOR, BRYCE TAYLOR 


LAND-3 




1209 


MR. & MRS. DONALD S. TEAGUE 


AIR-1 ; RAN-2; VRM-1 ; WILD-2, 3; WSR-2 


1210 


CONNIE TERRY 


LAND-3 




1211 


ROCKFORD & HELEN TERRY 


LAND-3 




1212 


RONALD D. TERRY 



1213 TOM TERRY, CHAIRMAN 

UTAH OHV ADVISORY COUNCIL 

ACEC-1; OHV-4,7,8,10,12,17 



1214 



D. THALAN 



1215 DAN THOMAS, ROCKY MOUNTAIN ATV 

OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



1216 JACQUELINE & W.R.THOMAS 



1219 



RANDEL L.THOMAS 



1220 BLYTHE THOMPSON, JIM HENNING 

LAN D-1; VRM-1, 2 



1221 



JAMES W.THOMPSON 



1222 LOUISE V THOMPSON 

LAND-3 



1223 RON THOMPSON, WASHINGTON COUNTY 
WATER CONSERVANCY DIST 

FIRE-1; GEN-13, 14,15, 16,17,18,21; LAND- 
14,15,20,21,22,23,24,29; MIN-3; SOEC-1,2; 
T&E-4,5,6,7,8,9; WATER-2,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,23; 
WSR-1 ,4,7,8,9,1 0,1 1 ,1 5,1 7-25,28 

1224 NEDTHORN 
OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 

1226 URSULA TISON 

OHV-8,10 



1227 



TRAGI TODHAM 



1228 JIM & DONNA TOERING 

OHV-1, 2,3,4,8 



1229 
OHV-1, 2 



ROGER TONELL 
,3,4,8 



1231 J. MICHAEL TROUT 

OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 



1235 
OHV-4,5 



ROGER TUTTLE 

10 



1237 STEVEN P UNDERWOOD 
OHV-1 ,2,3,4,8 



1239 
OHV-1, 2, 



ROBERT UZELAR 
3,4,8 



1240 
LAND-3 



PAUL VALENCIA 



1242 NICHOLAS VAN PELT 

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 



1244 
LAND-3 



PAMELA R.VANDERWERFF 



1247 
OHV-1, 2 



JOHN VERITY 

,3,4,8 



1 248 RICK VESCO, VESCO'S SPORT CENTER 
OHV-1, 2, 3, 4,8 

1249 MARK VON METTENHEIM 
OHV-1, 4,10 



1252 
LAND-: 



ELDON WALKER, JAN WALKER 



1 253 ELDON WALKER, MAYOR, TOWN OF ROCKVILLE 

GEN-17; L-1,3 



1255 
LAND-3 



J.R. WALLACE 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.18 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



1256 JAMES K WALLACE 



1258 ERIC WALTER 

AIR-1 ; RAN-2; VRM-1 ; WATER-1 ; WILD-2 



1261 



RUSSELL D. WARNER 



1262 MARIE WARRCEMS 

LAND-3 



1266 



NATALIE WEBB 



1268 CHRISTY WEISS 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1271 



PATRICIA & MARKWELLER 



1272 



DOUG L. WELLS 



1274 



DONALD R WERBER 



1275 MARK R. WERKMEISTER 

OHV-10,11 



1276 B.D. WEST 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1278 JANEWHALEN 

SOUTHWEST RESOURCE COUNCIL 

ACEC-3,4; CEN-4; HCP-1,2; 

LAND-1, 12, 15, 16,17,18; REC-1; VRM-2; WATER-4; WILD-2; 

WSR-3b 



1279 



CALLY WHEELER 



1280 HOWARD J. WHITAKER 

AIR-1 ; RAN-1 ; VRM-1 ; WATER-1 ; WILD-2, 3; WSR-3c 



1281 CHRISTAWHITENER 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1282 
OHV-11 



SCOTT WHITFORD 



1284 
OHV-1,2, 



TERRY WHITNEY 
3,4,8 



1285 



BRYAN WILCOX 



1286 



DOUGLAS WILCOX 



1287 



S. LEE WILCOX 



12£ 



STEVE WILCOX 



1289 



SCOTT WILDE 



1292 DON WILLIAMS, FEET UP 

OHV-5,8,10 



1294 
LAND-3 



ROY WILLIAMS 



1298 



KELLY B. WILSON 



1300 TASHA WILSON 

OHV-5,6,7,8 



1301 WILSON RESIDENCE 

OHV-5,6,7,8 



1302 BOYD WINDER 

LAND-3 



1305 RICHARD WINSEN 

LAND-3 



1306 ). RAYWIRTS 
OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1308 



MANNY WISHNOFF 



1309 KEVIN J. WITTWER, CLIFFORD WITTWER 

LAND-3 



1313 JOHNWOLFORD 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1315 



LESTER WOOD 



1316 OMAR WOOD 
OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1318 GREGWOODALL 

ACEC-3; VRM-1 



1324 LYNN C. WORWOOD 

OHV-5,8 



1325 



DENNIS WRIGHT 



1326 



DUSTY WRIGHT 



1327 



GEORGE E.WRIGHT 



132f 



LACY & BRANDON WRIGHT 



1329 



RICKY G.WRIGHT 



1331 



lAYYASUDA 



1332 



LEOYASUDA 



1333 



E. S.YOUNG 



1335 DONYOUNGDAHL 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1337 P.Z. ZADIS 

AIR-1; RAN-2; WILD-2; WSR-2 



1339 JOHN ZAPPELA 

OHV-1,2,3,4,8 



1 341 FIVE COUNTIES ASSOCIATION 

OF GOVERNMENTS 



LAND-20,26; OHV-5; SOEC-2; WSR-1; 
WATER-9 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND fINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.19 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



Comments and Responses 
on the Draft RMP 



This section contains the comments received 
from individuals, organizations, and governmen- 
tal agencies during the scoping comment period 
of the Draft RMP. The comments are organized 
by the 18 categories discussed previously. 
Following the comment is the response. 

Category: Off-Highway Vehicles 

OHV-1 

COMMENT: The Draft RMP analysis makes no 
mention of the negative impacts created by 
OHV use to warrant the closures and restric- 
tions imposed in the Preferred Alternative C. 

RESPONSE: It is BLM policy that off-road vehi- 
cle use is an acceptable use of public land wher- 
ever it is compatible with established resource 
management objectives. Impacts from OHVs 
have been documented in numerous articles and 
reports and are evident on the ground in many 
places within the Dixie Resource Area. In 
instances where the authorized officer deter- 
mines that OHV impacts would occur in the 
future if not curbed, limitations or closures are 
allowed. OHV closures and restrictions are 
imposed in order to minimize damage to cultur- 
al, soil, vegetation, and watershed resources or 
other resources of the public lands. OHV areas 
and trails should also be located to minimize 
disruption of wildlife or significant habitats, 
including protection of threatened and endan- 
gered species. Lastly, OHV designated use areas 
and trails should minimize conflicts between 
OHV use and other recreational uses on sur- 
rounding public lands. Limitations or closures 
are necessary due to compelling resource pro- 
tection needs, public safety issues, or user con- 
flicts. By law, lands within Wilderness Areas are 
closed to OHVs, and Wilderness Study Areas 
authorize limited use through the Interim 
Management Policy. Please refer to the new 
information in the OHV Management section of 
the Proposed Plan, as well as reference materials 
cited under responses to OHV-1 8 and OHV-1 9. 



OHV-2 

COMMENT: The Draft RMP ignores the man- 
agement of mountain bikes. 

RESPONSE: Mountain bike management is 
brought forth into all alternatives presented in 
the Draft RMP on pages 2.11, 2.27, 2.48, and 
2.80. See the Proposed Plan for additional 
information. 



OHV-3 

COMMENT: The Plan should separate the man- 
agement of two-wheeled vehicles (motorcycles 
and bicycles that create a single track), and four- 
wheeled OHVs (vehicles that create a two- 
track). 

RESPONSE: The BLM planning process current- 
ly has no policy or direction for depicting these 
two categories of OHVs and separating them 
into different classes for trail purposes. 
However, BLM is willing to work with OHV 
groups to resolve issues and establish trails. 
Future trails could be planned for single or two- 
track use with the help of partnerships from the 
OHV community. See the amended language in 
the OHV section of the Proposed Plan. 

OHV-4 

COMMENT: Motorized users were excluded 
from the planning process. BLM should work 
with interest groups, develop partnerships, 
and conduct education programs concerning 
OHV use. 

RESPONSE: BLM has initiated coordination 
meetings with OHV and mountain biking inter- 
est groups and the Utah OHV Council. 
Information gathered at preliminary meetings 
has helped structure decisions in the Proposed 
Plan OHV section, and has established a foun- 
dation to create partnerships to determine the 
future of OHV opportunities within Washington 
County. Much more work needs to be done by 
BLM with the motorized users in the future. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.20 



CHAPTER 5 • PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



OHV-5 

COMMENT: Many commentors did not under- 
stand the OHV classifications of OPEN, LIMIT- 
ED, and CLOSED. Predominant questions were: 
"Why has the BLM unilaterally closed all but 
2,000 acres to OHV use in the Preferred 
Alternative?" "What is the difference between 
limited to existing roads and trails and limited to 
designated roads and trails?" 

RESPONSE: The OHV Management section of 
the Proposed Plan includes a complete list of 
definitions for OHV management in the 
resource area. The Draft RMP Preferred 
Alternative did not "close" all but 2,000 acres to 
OHV use; 2,000 acres were left "open" for use 
without restriction. However, over 416,600 
acres were left open for use on existing or desig- 
nated roads and trails. See the Proposed Plan 
for new decisions regarding OHV use cate- 
gories. 

OHV-6 

COMMENT: Why is BLM allowing the Sand 
Hollow Land Exchange when it would give 
away 3,000 acres of the only open OHV area in 
the county? 

RESPONSE: The Sand Hollow Land Exchange is 
a legislative land exchange that was approved 
by Congress in November 1996. BLM has been 
directed by Congress to complete the land 
exchange. The Washington County Water 
Conservancy District (WCWCD) has proposed 
the development of a reservoir on this site. In 
addition, it is anticipated that they would enter 
into an agreement with the Utah Division of 
Parks and Recreation to develop a campground 
and other facilities that would complement 
OHV use in this area. In the Proposed Plan, 
under the Recreation and OHV Management 
sections, a much larger OHV area has been 
classified as "Open" on Sand Mountain. 

OHV-7 

COMMENT: The Sand Hollow Land Exchange 
site currently has a Special Recreation Use 
Permit for Motorcycle Trials. If that land is to be 
exchanged, the BLM should find another site 
that would accommodate the Trials. 



RESPONSE: See the response to OHV-6. BLM 
has already worked with the proponent of the 
Motorcycle Trials to look for additional sites to 
accommodate the yearly trials competition. 

OHV-8 

COMMENT: Keep all lands open for OHV use 
as currently depicted in Alternative A of the 
Draft RMR 

RESPONSE: In light of other resource manage- 
ment issues and conflicts, BLM has determined 
that a balanced approach to OHV designations 
is needed to prevent growing resource degrada- 
tion and conflicts with other user groups. See 
the responses to OHV-1 and OHV-6. 

OHV-9 

COMMENT BLM should consider how OHV 
use benefits local economies in Washington 
County. 

RESPONSE: It is recognized that OHV use in 
the county benefits the local economies and this 
has been incorporated into the Proposed Plan 
Impact Analysis in Chapter 3 under the OHV 
Management and Socioeconomic Factors sec- 
tions. 

OHV-1 

COMMENT: The Draft Management Plan does 
not show justification for reduced OHV open 
areas, especially in the Preferred Alternative. 

RESPONSE: See response to OHV-1 . 

OHV-1 1 

COMMENT: Motorcycles and mountain bikes 
should be considered in the same classification. 

RESPONSE: Mountain bikes are not considered 
OHVs because they are nonmotorized and are 
not included in the 43 CFR Part 8340 regula- 
tions. They are not included in specific OHV 
regulations and policy. Impacts from mountain 
bikes are different than impacts from motorcy- 
cles due to tire width, weight, size, and power. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.21 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



Use areas are frequently different clue to user 
group preference and different ground surface 
requirements. The Proposed Plan keeps them in 
separate categories. 

OHV-12 

COMMENT: By concentrating OHV use in one 
particular area, BLM is also concentrating dam- 
age to the natural resources in that area; that 
damage may ultimately cause additional clo- 
sures. 

RESPONSE: The Proposed Plan provides three 
"open areas" totaling 89,235 acres and leaves 
most roads and trails in the resource area open 
to OHV use. These areas were selected, in part, 
because of limited potential for significant 
resource damage. At public meetings held in 
December 1 995, the majority of OHV enthusi- 
asts reported confining their travel to existing 
roads and trails. The changes made between 
the Draft RMP and the Proposed Plan achieve a 
proper balance in providing suitable open areas, 
linear routes, and opportunities for future trail 
development in coordination with user groups 
and interested agencies. As a general approach, 
concentrating OHV use in selected areas or lim- 
iting OHVs to regularly used routes minimizes 
the impacts to the region as a whole. There is 
an advantage in concentrating OHV use in that 
it can be better managed and proliferation of 
impacted areas can be avoided. A philosophy 
similar to the "corridor concept" for rights-of- 
way can be applied to OHV use. Corridors for 
rights-of-way with compatible uses are pre- 
scribed in Section 503 of the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to con- 
centrate use, minimize adverse impacts, and 
avoid proliferation of separate routes. 

OHV-13 

COMMENT: The Draft Management Plan does 
not clarify if authorized users (those people with 
legal permits) are allowed to travel "off-high- 
way" in closed or restricted areas. 

RESPONSE: The definition of an off-highway or 
off-road vehicle does not include military, fire, 
emergency, or law enforcement vehicles while 
being used for emergency purposes or any vehi- 
cle whose use is expressly permitted by the 
authorized officer or otherwise officially 



approved. Areas designated "closed" would 
generally not be open for off-highway vehicle 
use for people with permits for livestock opera- 
tions, mining operations, or other such usual 
permits. In areas under a "Limited" use catego- 
ry, authorized users would be permitted to travel 
"off-highway" for purposes specified in the use 
permit. These distinctions are now reflected in 
the OHV Management section of the Proposed 
Plan. 

OHV-14 

COMMENT: Leave the current OHV regulations 
as they are now. 

RESPONSE: The current OHV regulations under 
the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 8340, will 
not be changed as a result of the Dixie Resource 
Management Plan. However, OHV designations 
for public lands in the resource area have been 
changed to reflect the need to protect natural 
resources from additional impacts from off-road 
travel, while providing opportunities for motor- 
ized recreation and other legitimate purposes. 
See response to OHV-8. 

OHV-15 

COMMENT: OHV decisions in Alternative D are 
brought forward only to make OHV decisions in 
Alternative C look good. 

RESPONSE: Four alternative plans for the man- 
agement of the public lands within the resource 
area were considered in the Draft RMP. Each 
plan was a separate, implementable, multiple- 
use approach to resource management and each 
had a different objective. The objective of 
Alternative C was to emphasize the balance of 
resource development and resource protection. 
The objective of Alternative D was to emphasize 
preserving biological systems and scenic values. 
Alternative formulation and analysis is required 
through the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) and through the planning regulations 
stipulated in 43 CFR part 1600. 

OHV-16 

COMMENT: Closing areas to OHV use violates 
the Americans with Disabilities Act and also the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1 973. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSEO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.22 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



RESPONSE: The concept of multiple use is 
often misconstrued to mean all uses must be 
allowed on all public lands. It is clearly the 
intent of Congress that lands be selected for 
management to maximize different and varying 
resources, not that all resources be maximized 
on each acre of public land. For example, mul- 
tiple use means that extraction of minerals, 
which is an exclusive use of the land and 
resources, is allowed in certain areas, OHV use 
is allowed in some areas, and naturalness and 
solitude are preserved in other areas. BLM rec- 
ognizes that, with special provisions and assis- 
tance, the disabled can also enjoy areas that are 
closed to OHVs, although in fewer numbers 
than if motorized vehicles and mechanized 
access were allowed. Limiting or closing select- 
ed natural areas does not violate the Americans 
with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act of 
1 973. Those acts, along with the Architectural 
Barriers Act, basically apply to developed areas, 
structures, and other constructed facilities. BLM 
strives to meet the mandate of Section 504 of 
the Rehabilitation Act that requires that "no oth- 
erwise qualified individual shall, solely by rea- 
son of his or her handicap, be denied the bene- 
fits of or participation in any program or activity 
funded or conducted by a federal agency," but 
this is not interpreted to mean that BLM must 
provide for or allow vehicular access to every 
square foot of the 22 million acres of BLM-man- 
aged public land in Utah. Nor does it mean 
that BLM cannot restrict travel routes or close 
areas to vehicles in order to protect natural 
resource values such as wildlife habitat, fragile 
soils, riparian vegetation, or rare plants. 

OHV-17 

COMMENT: The following was submitted as 
new information concerning OHV users: 

1) "Motorcycle trail riders need trails of various 
skill levels, ideally with loops of TO miles or 
more of mostly single-track trails. Double tracks 
are generally boring to intermediate and 
advanced riders and are best suited as connec- 
tors of single track trails." 

2) "Trials motorcycle riders (note the spelling is 
not trails) generally do not ride trails, but prefer 
technical areas where they have access to an 
entire area. These areas are usually fairly small, 
some as small as 100-200 acres, others as large 
as 1,000-2,000 acres." 



3) "ATV riders generally prefer both trails and 
open areas, including sand areas." 

RESPONSE: This information is very useful and 
helped BLM recraft its OHV management pro- 
posal. The information will also be used during 
future activity level planning with OHV partners 
to develop new trails in Washington County. 

OHV-18 

COMMENT: How are OHVs deleterious to tor- 
toises? Where is documentation of harm done to 
desert tortoise by OHV use. How many are 
killed each year? 

RESPONSE: OHV activities are among the most 
widespread and best documented of threats to 
desert tortoises, other listed species, and habi- 
tats. The list of impacts from OHV use is exten- 
sive and includes direct mortality of tortoises, 
damage to tortoise burrows, damage to vegeta- 
tion needed for foraging, damage to soils, dis- 
ruptive noises, and wildland fire ignition. A list 
of articles and books that document these 
impacts has been provided below. In addition, 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) 
Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan (pages 56-57) 
recommends that OHV activity within areas 
managed for desert tortoises should be limited 
to designated roads and trails, and that all 
competitive and organized events be restricted 
to designated roads with adherence to strict 
mitigating stipulations. 

Adams, J.A., A.S. Endo, L.H. Stolzy, R.G. 
Rowlands, and H.B. Johnson. 1982. Controlled 
experiments on soil compaction produced by 
off-road vehicles in the Mojave Desert, 
California. J. Applied Ecology 1 9:1 67-1 75. 

Adams, J.A., A.S. Endo, L.H. Stolzy, R.G. 
Rowlands, and H.B. Johnson. 1 984. Desert soil 
compaction reduces annual plant cover. 
California Agriculture 36:6-7. 

Berry, K.H., and L.L. Nicholson. 1984. A sum- 
mary of human activities and their impacts on 
desert tortoise populations and habitat in 
California. Chapter 3 in K.H. Berry(ed), The 
Status of the Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizi) 
in the United States. Desert Tortoise Council 
Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.23 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



Bury, R.B. 1987. Off-road vehicles reduce tor- 
toise numbers and well-being. USD!, National 
Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, Colorado. 
Research Information Bulletin #87-6. 

Bury, R.B., and R.A. Luckenbach. 1986. 
Abundance of desert tortoises in natural and dis- 
turbed habitats. USDI, National Ecology 
Research Center, Ft. Collins, Colorado. 

Bury, R.B., and R.A. Luckenbach, and S.D. 
Busack. 1977. Effects of off-road vehicles on 
vertebrates in the California desert. USDI, 
Wildlife Research Report 8, Washington D.C. 
Webb, R.H. and H.G. Wilshire. 1983. 
Environmental effects of off-road vehicles: 
impacts and management in arid regions. 
Springer- Verlag, New York. 

OHV-19 

COMMENT: Where is there documented evi- 
dence that OHV use causes impacts to nesting 
raptors? 

RESPONSE: Any direct or indirect impact to 
raptors, which includes destruction of active 
raptor nests or disturbance to nests resulting in 
the disruption of the nesting cycle or mortality 
of young, is illegal under federal law. It is 
BLM's responsibility, through decisions in the 
land use plan, applicable mitigation measures, 
and consultation with the FWS, to ensure that 
impacts to nesting raptors do not occur on pub- 
lic lands. During nesting periods, disturbance 
and stress associated with human activities in 
the vicinity of a raptor nest could cause 
direct/indirect impacts, including nest abandon- 
ment or loss of young. Sensitivity varies by type 
of disturbance and species. Nesting birds 
would be more sensitive to disturbance in the 
line of sight from a nest (e.g., below a cliff nest) 
than to activities not in the line of sight. Many 
studies have been completed by BLM and FWS 
scientists, state wildlife resource agencies, as 
well as university studies that document the 
effects of raptor nest disturbance from human 
activities, including OHV use. A list of articles 
and books that document some of these impacts 
is provided below. 

Bury, R.B.and R.A. Luckenbach. 1983. 
Vehicular recreation in arid land drives: biotic 



responses and management alternatives. Pages 
217-221 in Webb, R.H. and H.G. Wilshire, eds. 
Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles. 
Impacts and Management in Arid Regions. 
Springer- Verlag. New York, NY. 

Cooperrider, A.Y, R. J. Boyd, and H.R. Stuart, 
eds. 1986. Inventory and Monitoring of 
Wildlife Habitat. USDI, Bureau of Land 
Management. Service Center. Denver, CO. 
xviii, 858 pp. 

Johnson and Carothers, 1982 Bulletin 12. 
Riparian Habitat and Recreation - 
Interrelationships and impacts in the Southwest 
and Rocky Mountain region. Eisenhower 
Consortium for Western Environmental Forestry 
Research 

Webb, R.H. and H.G. Wilshire. 1983. 
Environmental effects of off-road vehicles: 
impacts and management in arid regions. 
Springer-Verlag, New York. 

Weinstein, M. 1978. Impact of off-road vehicles 
on the avifauna of Afton Canyon, California. 
USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Calif. 
Desert Prog., Riverside, Calif., Rpt. On Contr. 
CA-060-CT7-2734 

OHV-20 

COMMENT: How does BLM define an OHV 
"trail"? Where has BLM designated OHV trails? 
How does BLM catalogue existing OHV trails? 
Do existing trails refer to the R.S. 2477 asser- 
tions submitted to BLM by Washington County? 
Does a wash bottom constitute an existing OHV 
trail? 

RESPONSE: As depicted in the OHV 
Management section of the Proposed Plan, a 
trail is defined as "a two-track vehicle way such 
as a jeep trail, a single track maintained specifi- 
cally to allow passage by ATVs or motorcycles, 
and unvegetated wash bottoms." BLM current- 
ly has no designated OHV trails in the resource 
area. Through partnerships formed with OHV 
and mountain bike groups, existing trails can be 
catalogued in the future, and new trails could 
be designated and/or developed and main- 
tained. Some R.S. 2477 assertions that were 
submitted to BLM by the county are considered 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.24 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



trails by BLM definition; however, not all trails 
in the resource area were asserted by the coun- 
ty. A wash bottom is considered an existing trail 
if it is a dry wash and does not contain riparian 
vegetation. 

OHV-21 

COMMENT: BLM should establish a motorcycle 
area adjacent to St. George to accommodate 
youth and address the concerns of residents. 

RESPONSE: The majority of public lands sur- 
rounding St. George are encumbered by other 
resource values that make the establishment of 
an "open" motorcycle area difficult. To the 
north is the Washington County Habitat 
Conservation Plan area that allows OHV use 
only on select designated roads and trails. To 
the west is the Shivwits Indian Reservation and 
public lands south of Ivins and Santa Clara that 
require limitations due to riparian resources, 
threatened and endangered species, sensitive 
cultural resources, and wildlife habitat. To the 
south and east of St. George are lands encum- 
bered by the endangered dwarf bear-claw poppy 
and the siler cactus, again precluding "open" 
use by OHV users. Lands currently owned by 
the State to the south of St. George are being 
heavily used by OHV users. The Proposed Plan 
depicts an "open" area on public lands of 429 
acres contiguous to these state lands. In effect, 
approximately 1,500 acres of state and public 
land west of Bloomington is suitable for motor- 
cycle and ATV use and is "open" for use. The 
balance of lands in that area would remain 
open for use only on existing or designated 
roads and trails. The 34,475 acres at Sand 
Mountain would be left in an open category that 
would service users throughout the urbanizing 
portions of Washington County. See response to 
REC-la. 

Category : General 

GEN-1 

COMMENT: How are resource management 
conflicts addressed in the Draft RMP, and what 
opportunities do the general public have for 
input and appeal? 

RESPONSE: Resource management conflicts 
were identified during scoping and issue identi- 



fication in the early planning stages of the Draft 
RMR The four alternatives provided different 
perspectives of resource management that 
address the issues. Resource management con- 
flicts were generally offset through mitigation 
built into each alternative. Opportunities for 
public input are provided through the NEPA 
process beginning with scoping at the inception 
of the planning process. When the Draft RMP 
was completed, it was provided to the public for 
a review and comment period. In the case of 
the Dixie Draft RMP, the review and comment 
period lasted for almost 7 months. When the 
Proposed Plan is published, it will be distributed 
to the public for a 30-day review and protest 
period. Because this is a planning document, it 
can be protested to the Director of the Bureau 
of Land Management, but not appealed to the 
Interior Board of Land Appeals (43 CFR Part 
1500). As specific planning decisions are 
implemented after plan approval, adversely 
affected parties may appeal the decisions under 
the provisions of 43 CFR Part 4. 

GEN-2 

COMMENT: Why is there no discussion of 
floodplains in any Alternative, and why is there 
no floodplain map? 

RESPONSE: Under Executive Orders 1 1 990 
and 1 1998, federal agencies, including the 
BLM, are required to avoid direct or indirect 
support of floodplain development whenever 
there is a practicable alternative. In order to 
emphasize the importance of floodplain protec- 
tion, the Proposed Plan discusses floodplains 
under the Riparian Resources and Soil and 
Water Resources sections. The Washington 
County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD) 
is currently working on floodplain mapping 
throughout the Virgin River Basin. Floodplain 
maps were not determined to be necessary in 
this RMP to show resource allocations to be 
considered. 

GEN-3 

COMMENT: There is no table showing how the 
Draft RMP complies with relevant federal 
statutes and executive orders such as EO 1 1990 
(Wetlands) and EO 11989 (OHV). 

RESPONSE: Page 1 .4 of the Draft RMP discuss- 
es the parameters that the RMP must comply 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.25 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



with under the Planning Criteria section. 
Specified under this section are laws, Executive 
Orders, and regulations. To list out each one 
would unnecessarily enlarge the document. 
Adherence and compliance to all of the existing 
laws, executive orders, and regulations is man- 
dated. EG 1 1 990 directs federal agencies to 
minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of 
wetlands and to preserve and enhance the nat- 
ural and beneficial value of wetlands in carrying 
out programs affecting land use. EO 1 1 989 
gives federal agencies the authority to designate 
emergency OHV closures to protect critical 
resources. 

GEN-4 

COMMENT: The Draft RMP should clearly state 
its objectives in terms of zoning by various land 
types such as transition areas from rural to 
urban, areas of rural/agricultural communities, 
and defacto wilderness or primitive recreational 
areas. 

RESPONSE: BLM's planning objectives and 
decisions are depicted as land use designations 
or categories on Maps 2.1 through 2.1 7 in the 
Proposed Plan, as well as on maps that were 
portrayed in the Draft RMP for the four alterna- 
tives. The zones of interest to the public and 
other planning agencies can easily be overlain 
on these maps for additional planning purposes. 

GEN-5 

COMMENT: BLM philosophy too quickly con- 
cedes land to development and resource-extrac- 
tion interests. Revise the RMP to incorporate 
conservation objectives to preserve resources. 

RESPONSE: Section 102 of the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 
and other laws such as the Taylor Grazing Act, 
Mineral Leasing Act, General Mining Act of 
1872, etc., direct the BLM to use and observe 
the principles of multiple use and sustained 
yield set forth in applicable law during the 
development of land use plans. Among other 
factors, FLPMA also directs BLM to give priority 
to the designation and protection of areas of 
critical environmental concern and to consider 
present and potential uses of the public lands. 
The Dixie Resource Area has followed the ele- 



ments mandated by FLPMA to produce the Draft 
RMP and the Proposed Plan. Specific areas 
and/or specific resources are protected and pre- 
served throughout the Draft RMP and Proposed 
Plan where warranted by law, executive order, 
regulation, policy, or management objectives. 

GEN-6 

COMMENT: The Draft RMP lacks a clear state- 
ment of purpose and intent. 

RESPONSE: Chapter 1 of the Draft RMP 
describes the purpose and need for the 
Resource Management Plan. Additional discus- 
sion on broad goals and management focus has 
been included in Chapter 1 of the Proposed 
Plan. In addition, general management objec- 
tives have been brought forth into each resource 
section in Chapter 2 of the Proposed Plan. 

GEN-7 

COMMENT: The statements made on "Planning 
Issues to be Addressed" on page 1 .4 of the Draft 
RMP are too vague to be effective. A list of 
land-use conflicts which are most pertinent to 
the resource area should be indicated. 

RESPONSE: The issues brought forth on page 
1 .4 of the Draft were identified by Federal 
Register notice on July 26, 1 991 . These were 
the issues that were brought forth during the 
public scoping process required by 43 CFR 
1 61 0.2. The introduction to Chapter 4 of the 
Draft RMP (pages 4.3 - 4.8) focuses on the spe- 
cific environmental issues relevant to the 
resource area. In addition, issues driving the 
management decisions in the Proposed Plan are 
further discussed in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of 
the Proposed Plan. 

GEN-8 

COMMENT: What efforts has the RMP made to 
be consistent with other planning documents 
such as the Washington County HCP, the Virgin 
River Management Plan, and the Washington 
County Open Space Plan? 

RESPONSE: The Proposed Plan endorses con- 
sistency with state and local plans. See the 
Proposed Plan as well as the new Planning 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.26 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



Consistency section in Chapter 4. When the 
Draft RMP was released in October 1995, the 
Washington County HCP and the Virgin River 
Management Plan had not been completed. A 
statement on page 2.1 of the Draft RMP states: 
"The BLM would manage lands to meet the 
goals and objectives of special status plant and 
animal species final Recovery Plans and 
approved Habitat Management Plans, including 
the Virgin River Habitat Conservation 
Management Plan (Draft)." On page 2.39, the 
Draft RMP states: "The BLM would cooperate 
with FWS, state and local governments in devel- 
oping and implementing applicable HCPs for 
the preservation of desert tortoise and other list- 
ed or candidate species." In addition. Chapter 
5 of the Draft RMP discussed plans that would 
be given full consideration as land use decisions 
are made, including the Virgin River Habitat 
Conservation and Management Plan. The 
Washington County Open Space Plan is not 
completed or available for use at this time. 

GEN-9 

COMMENT: The RMP should address the fact 
that loss of BLM lands to disposal can be coun- 
terbalanced by the protection of lands under 
other entities, e.g.. The Virgin River Land 
Preservation Association or The Nature 
Conservancy. Bringing this forth would help 
clarify the importance and benefits of coordinat- 
ed management efforts. 

RESPONSE: BLM recognizes that collaboration 
with other public land users and state and local 
agencies is extremely important and that it was 
not given adequate attention in the Draft RMP. 
The Proposed Plan has added major commit- 
ments to this effect throughout the Proposed 
Plan. 

GEN-10 

COMMENT: The Draft RMP does not adequate- 
ly display the environmental effects of the pro- 
posed action. 

RESPONSE: A RMP is basically a programmatic 
NEPA document that does not complete an in- 
depth analysis by specific actions. Rather, a 
RMP provides planning level analysis of impacts 
of an alternative as a whole on the physical and 
social environment. The analysis of environmen- 



tal consequences in Chapter 3 of the Proposed 
Plan provides adequate descriptions of effects 
commensurate with the level and nature of the 
Proposed Plan. Site-specific analysis would 
be completed in subsequent project level 
documents. 

GEN-11 

COMMENT: The RMP should display the envi- 
ronmental consequences of its proposals on 
adjacent lands including Zion National Park, 
Dixie National Forest, State School Trust Lands, 
Paiute Indian Reservation, and private landown- 
ers. The analysis failed to disclose whether its 
management enhanced or detracted from 
opportunities on these lands. 

RESPONSE: The Proposed Plan has been 
revised to include a specific section discussing 
proposed management decisions through part- 
nerships with immediate neighbors, including 
Zion National Park and the Shivwits Indian 
Reservation. The Proposed Plan has been 
expanded to provide a general analysis of the 
impacts of the Proposed Plan to local, state, and 
federal land neighbors in Chapter 3. 

GEN-12 

COMMENT: A comprehensive cumulative 
analysis of past and projected activities was not 
completed, especially in light of those generated 
by other entities and occurring on other owner- 
ships such as Zion National Park, State Lands, 
etc. 

RESPONSE: For purposes of the generalized 
programmatic RMP, a generic cumulative 
impact analysis, consistent with the environ- 
mental consequences analysis, was appropriate 
and provides sufficient information to disclose 
anticipated effects of alternatives in the RMP 
The Proposed Plan contains elements of four 
separate alternatives, and as such, a new cumu- 
lative impact analysis has been completed. A 
comprehensive cumulative impact analysis 
would be completed on future proposed actions 
as site specific projects warrant this type of 
analysis. 

GEN-13 

COMMENT: The baseline or "no action" alter- 
native is used in an arbitrary manner throughout 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.27 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



the RMP and EIS. It is impossible to determine 
the rationale and basis for this alternative. The 
"no action" alternative, which is Alternative A in 
the Draft RMP/EIS does not reflect decisions 
made in the BLM Management Framework Plan 
(MFP). There is no approved BLM plan or 
amendment which incorporates many of the 
Alternative A resource decisions into the MFP. 
The problems and deficiencies resulting from 
not applying a consistent and rigorous standard 
for the "no action" alternative are too numerous 
to recount. 

RESPONSE: The description of the "no action" 
alternative in the Draft RMP mischaracterizes 
the emphasis of the alternative as reflecting only 
the decisions of the MFR As per 43 CFR 
1 61 0.4-5, under the planning regulations for the 
formulation of alternatives, the "no action" alter- 
native means the continuation of present level 
or systems of resource use. Continuation of cur- 
rent management includes MFP decisions that 
are still useful and reliable, guidance from 
national level policy which has been established 
through legislation, regulations, executive 
orders, or other Presidential, Secretarial, or 
Director- approved documents. Guidance for 
current management can also be developed at 
the State Director, District Manager, and 
Resource Area Manager level as well as from 
information and data gathered from new inven- 
tories. The "no action" alternative attempts to 
reflect BLM's management strategies currently 
applied under the older directives until comple- 
tion of this Resource Management Plan. 
Changes in the text have been made through the 
Errata Sheet to clarify the purpose and emphasis 
of this alternative. 

GEN-14 

COMMENT: How were cultural and paleonto- 
logical resources allocated in the plan? 

RESPONSE: Cultural and paleontological 
resources were not "allocated" in the Draft RMP 
or in the Proposed Plan. References to alloca- 
tions for these sensitive resources is misleading. 
In fact, cultural and paleontological resources 
are protected by law. They are managed in 
some locations through proposed designation of 
ACECs and limitations on other uses in areas of 
known paleontological and cultural resources 



such as the Dinosaur Trackway and the Fort 
Pearce Historical Site. 

GEN-15 

COMMENT: Why are the HMP objectives dis- 
played on Table 3-5 in the Draft RMP not part of 
Alternative A, the No Action Alternative? 

RESPONSE: The HMP objectives discussed in 
Chapter 3 are a part of all of the Alternatives in 
the Draft RMP Under the "Common To AH" sec- 
tion of the Draft RMP on page 2.1 it states: "The 
BLM would manage lands to meet the goals and 
objectives of.. .approved Habitat Management 
Plans..." 

GEN-16 

COMMENT: On page 4.2 of the Draft RMP, 
item number 6, the wording of this statement 
implies the BLM will savage all archeological 
sites before transfer. Is this correct? 

RESPONSE: This statement has been corrected 
and amended and is included in the Errata 
Sheet. 

GEN-17 

COMMENT: Numerous inconsistencies were 
brought forth concerning Table 5- 1 in Chapter 
5 of the Draft RMP This table provided a gener- 
al overview of local, county, state, and federal 
plans and the Draft RMP's consistency with 
those plans. 

RESPONSE: A new, more in-depth consistency 
review was completed for the Proposed Plan, 
taking the comments into consideration. See 
Chapter 4 of the Proposed Plan for more 
detailed information. 

GEN-18 

COMMENT: Closing or restricting areas to use 
for rights-of-way, OHVs, potential reservoir sites, 
mineral and oil exploration and development, 
materials sales, grazing, land sales and 
exchanges, R&PPs, camping, limiting water 
development, etc., all have huge potential 
adverse impacts on the public and individual 
public land users. Many of the potentially 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FLAN AND FINAL E N V Hi O N M E N TA L IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.28 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



adverse impacts could be avoided with proper 
management and/or decisions. 

RESPONSE: Professional management of the 
public lands, in accordance with the mandates 
of a variety of applicable Federal laws, includes 
more than just the accommodation of intensive 
or consumptive uses. Of equal importance is 
the consideration of resource conservation, 
preservation, and the application of multiple use 
and sustained yield. Section 102 of FLPMA 
specifically states that "the public lands be man- 
aged in a manner that will protect the scientific, 
scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air 
and atmospheric, water resource, and archeo- 
logical values; that, where appropriate, will pre- 
serve and protect certain public lands in their 
natural condition; that will provide food and 
habitat for fish and wildlife...." In order to carry 
out this aspect of the BLM mission, appropriate 
limitations must be placed on other uses in cer- 
tain locations. The function of land use plan- 
ning is to identify resource characteristics, use 
and preservation options, alternative opportuni- 
ties for management, and ultimately establish a 
management blueprint "that will best meet the 
present and future needs of the American peo- 
ple" (FLPMA Section 103). To the extent possi- 
ble, this means all of the people: national, 
regional, and local. Further, the objective for 
any particular BLM land use plan must be to 
provide for the "harmonious and coordinated 
management of the various resources without 
permanent impairment of the productivity of the 
land and the quality of the environment with 
consideration being given to the relative values 
of the resources and not necessarily to the com- 
bination of uses that will give the greatest eco- 
nomic return or the greatest unit output" 
(FLPMA, Section 103). 

GEN-19 

COMMENT: The Draft RMP completely fails to 
address valid pre-existing rights especially in 
light of the vast majority of road rights-of-way 
across BLM lands within the Dixie Resource 
Area. 

RESPONSE: R.S. 2477 roads are addressed in 
the Draft RMP on page 4.5 under "Impacts on 
Access and Transportation from Revised Statute 
2477" and are further addressed in the impact 



analysis in Chapter 3 of the Proposed Plan. A 
new discussion and additional information is 
also included in the Transportation section of 
the Proposed Plan. Current R.S. 2477 assertions 
will not be resolved until administrative process- 
es are put into place by new regulations, federal 
court action, or legislation in the U.S. Congress. 
FLPMA Section 701 clearly states that it does 
not terminate any valid lease, permit, patent, 
right-of-way, or other land use right or autho- 
rization existing on the date the act was passed 
(October 21, 1976). It also states that "All 
actions by the Secretary concerned under this 
act shall be subject to valid existing rights." 
Therefore, the Dixie RMP/EIS and the associated 
Record of Decision, must as a matter of law, 
recognize valid existing rights. Both the Draft 
RMP and Proposed Plan make a clear declara- 
tion on that point. The policy and legal debate 
on the road right-of-way issue centers around 
interpretation of Revised Statute 2477 (R.S. 
2477). That law was repealed by FLPMA in 
1 976, but its effects are now a matter before the 
U.S. Courts. Resolution of this debate is a 
national and statewide issue beyond the scope 
of the Dixie RMR 

GEN-20 

COMMENT: Why was no meaningful analysis 
on preliminary decisions made for wildlife 
resources? 

RESPONSE: Extensive analysis was completed 
for special status animal species within the Draft 
RMR Page 4.6 in the Draft RMP states that; 
"The impacts of forage allocation for wildlife are 
addressed in the BLM FHot Desert Grazing 
Management FEIS. The impact analysis found in 
the FEIS is incorporated by reference and no fur- 
ther analysis is included." 

GEN-21 

COMMENT: We do not believe the applicable 
laws and regulations relating to planning and 
EIS preparation permit sufficient latitude to BLM 
to modify the current Draft Plan to make it 
acceptable to the competing interests. 
Therefore, we strongly suggest it be withdrawn 
and that BLM embark on a more modest coop- 
erative and collaborative effort to amend the 
current MFP to provide the needed guidance for 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.29 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC C( 



iMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



BLM managers for the three major issues identi- 
fied in the Draft RMP. 

RESPONSE: Considerable latitude and judge- 
ment may be exercised by each federal agency 
and each EIS preparation group regarding the 
reasonable content of draft and final EIS docu- 
ments. A Draft EIS is released for review and 
comment prior to completion as a final EIS. 
Fairly significant changes to the Draft may be 
made, if appropriate, in response to the com- 
ments. As long as the reasonable range of alter- 
natives is not greatly enlarged, it is not neces- 
sary to reissue the Draft for additional com- 
ments. It is unlikely that BLM could prepare a 
plan that would be acceptable to competing 
interests in all respects, given the nature and 
extent of the controversies on public lands in 
Washington County. When a Final EIS docu- 
ment is issued, the opportunity for additional 
public input is available during a "protest" peri- 
od prior to agency decisions. Neither the Draft 
nor Final RMP/EIS are decision documents. 

Substantial coordination and collaboration with 
various interest groups and agencies has 
occurred over a long period of time during the 
preparation of the Dixie RMP. Many meetings, 
letters of comment, informational materials, and 
opinions have been part of the process. A sum- 
mary of this coordination is contained in 
Chapter 4 of this Proposed Plan. BLM has con- 
sidered all of the varied input. The Proposed 
Plan responds to the numerous comments made 
on the Draft RMP and provides for the integra- 
tion of approved plans of local governments and 
agencies where such are consistent with federal 
law, regulations, and policies. BLM believes 
that the overall range of alternatives presented 
in the Dixie Draft RMP was reasonable. 
Clarification, adjustments, and further informa- 
tion presented in this Proposed Plan are within 
the general scope and intent of the Draft docu- 
ment. Therefore, it is not necessary to reissue a 
new Draft for review and comment. 

Category: Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern 

ACEC-1 

COMMENT: Why are all ACECs closed or lim- 
ited to OHV use? Justification for this action is 
not shown in the Draft RMP. 



RESPONSE: All 1 1 ACECs proposed in the Draft 
RMP have resource values that must be protect- 
ed in accordance with the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act. Those values are listed 
on Table 3-1 in the Draft RMP on page 3.37 
and are discussed in Chapter 4 of the analysis. 
Three of the 1 1 ACECs are also included within 
Wilderness Study Areas, which are managed 
under special land use prescriptions. See the 
Proposed Plan for changes that have been 
made to ACEC OHV decisions and for 
expanded justifications. 

ACEC-2 

COMMENT: What is the justification and scien- 
tific evidence for adding additional ACECs in 
this plan? 

RESPONSE: FLPMA requires that ACECs be 
given priority during inventory, identification, 
and development of land use plans. 
Nomination of ACECs is a public process initiat- 
ed through a Federal Register notice. The BLM, 
in evaluating the nomination, applies standard 
ACEC "relevance and importance" criteria to 
determine if the nominated area meets the crite- 
ria. If the criteria is met, the ACEC must be 
brought forward into the planning process. 
Additional ACECs were not added to the Draft 
RMP and are basically the same ACECs that 
were brought forth in the remanded 1990 Dixie 
Final RMP 

ACEC-3 

COMMENT: The Zion Scenic Corridor should 
be protected as an ACEC. 

RESPONSE: The area between Virgin and 
Springdale was considered and assessed for 
ACEC designation. It was determined that this 
area did not meet the scenic relevance or 
importance criteria for consideration as an 
ACEC due to the lack of public land ownership 
along h4ighway 9. See Appendix 9 of the Draft 
RMP 

ACEC-4 

COMMENT: Evaluate the expansion of the Red 
Bluff ACEC to capture dwarf bear-claw poppy 
plants on the northwestern boundary of the 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.30 



CHAPTER 5 " PUBLIC COMMENTS ON 



;aft rmp/eis and responses 



ACEC. Expand the Canaan Mountain ACEC 
boundary to the bottom of Smithsonian Butte to 
protect the south view, and expand the Red 
Mountain ACEC boundary to the SRMA bound- 
ary to protect scenic values. 

RESPONSE: Proposed ACECs were carefully 
evaluated when they were nominated for con- 
sideration and assessed for importance and rele- 
vance criteria. The nominations for these 
ACECs, and their justifications, did not warrant 
expansion of these ACECs for the purposes men- 
tioned in the comment. Documentation is 
available at the Dixie Resource Area Office. 

ACEC-5 

COMMENT: There is a conflict between the 
ACEC boundary for Beaver Dam Slope as shown 
on the map and acreage figures for Alternative 
C, and as depicted on the map and acreage fig- 
ures for Alternative D. Why is this? 

RESPONSE: Under Alternative C of the Draft 
RMP, the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC incorporated 
all of the identified desert tortoise critical habitat 
as well as the expanded Woodbury Desert Study 
Area. Under Alternative D, only the boundary 
of the formerly identified critical habitat for 
desert tortoise was brought forward, and the 
expanded Woodbury Desert Study Area was 
deleted from the ACEC. The Proposed Plan 
incorporates the expanded Woodbury Desert 
Study Area into the new Beaver Dam Slope 
ACEC boundary. 

ACEC-6 

COMMENT: The City Creek ACEC boundary 
should be expanded as is depicted in Alternative 
D to provide protective management for desert 
tortoise critical habitat and to create a special 
management area of suitable size for aiding the 
recovery of this species. 

RESPONSE: The City Creek ACEC is not carried 
forth into the Proposed Plan because it has been 
incorporated in the Washington County Habitat 
Conservation Plan. The ACEC boundary, as pro- 
posed in Alternative D of the Draft RMP is fully 
within an even larger area encompassing the 
HCP boundary. Specific management of the 
HCP was analvzed in the FWS's Desert Tortoise 



Incidental Take Permit EIS. Implementing the 
majority of management decisions in this docu- 
ment is incumbent upon the BLM and is carried 
forward in the Proposed Plan. Management 
decisions within the HCP are specifically for the 
protection and enhancement of desert tortoise 
and their habitat, as well as for other special sta- 
tus species. Applying an ACEC boundary over 
the HCP boundary would be redundant. 

ACEC-7 

COMMENT: The camping restriction of no 
overnight camping within 1 mile of the Fort 
Pearce Historic Site is not carried over into the 
prescriptions for the Warner Ridge/Fort Pearce 
ACEC. Why? 

RESPONSE: The Errata Sheet has corrected this 
inconsistency. In addition, the no overnight 
camping restriction has been carried forth into 
the prescriptions for this ACEC through the Sand 
Mountain SRMA management prescriptions in 
the Proposed Plan. 

ACEC-8 

COMMENT: Would the BLM consider the east- 
ern portion and the southern tip of Smith Mesa 
as another ACEC to protect Anasazi sites? 

RESPONSE: New proposals for ACECs would 
have to be processed through a Plan 
Amendment after the Dixie RMP is finalized. 
Public nomination of new ACECs must provide 
specific details concerning the proposed ACEC 
including maps and justification for such action 
in accordance with ACEC nomination policy. 
The BLM would then apply relevance and 
importance criteria to determine if further plan- 
ning action is warranted. 

Category: Visual Resource 
Management 

VRM-1 

COMMENT BLM should designate the highly 
visually sensitive lands between La Verkin and 
Zion National Park (including the Virgin River) a 
Scenic Corridor. (This corridor was referred to 
as the "Zion Scenic Corridor" or the "Virgin 
River Corridor" in numerous letters.) 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.31 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RES P O N S E S 



RESPONSE: BLM has no authority under cur- 
rent law or regulation to designate a "Scenic 
Corridor". The State of Utah has designated 
Highway 9 as a "Scenic Byway" and BLM has 
proposed to support this designation by assign- 
ing VRM Class I! objectives in this area. See the 
discussion in the Visual Resources Management 
section of the Proposed Plan for more informa- 
tion. 

VRM-2 

COMMENT: The "Zion Scenic Corridor" should 
be designated as a Visual Resource Management 
Class II area. 

RESPONSE: BLM acknowledges the extraordi- 
nary scenic values in the area between La 
Verkin and Zion National Park, as well as the 
attributes of the state's Scenic Byway designa- 
tion along Highway 9. In accordance with the 
county, some local communities, and other pub- 
lic recommendations for this area, a VRM Class 
II designation has been placed along this route. 
See the Visual Resource Management section of 
the Proposed Plan for further clarification. 

VRM-3 

COMMENT: How can VRM Classes change 
throughout the alternatives when they are deter- 
mined using the same procedures? 

RESPONSE: Visual values are identified and 
quantified in baseline visual inventories. The 
inventory includes an arduous and complex 
identification of scenic quality, visual sensitivity, 
distance zones, and relative value units. This 
information is available in the Dixie Resource 
Area Office in St. George. Based on alternative 
goals and objectives, BLM planning guidance 
allows for changes to baseline VRM classifica- 
tions to provide additional protection through 
mitigation requirements for any future proposed 
actions. Changes to the VRM baseline inventory 
should be justified for resource protection 
purposes. 

VRM-4 

COMMENT Draft RMP, Page 4.53, column 1, 
last paragraph: How does a reservoir affect a 
visually sensitive area since water is generally 
regarded as a pleasing aspect of any scene? 



RESPONSE: As in any setting where people 
make their own judgement calls, visually pleas- 
ing scenes are in the eye of the beholder. A 
reservoir placed within a desert backdrop would 
change the inherent natural setting of the area 
as a whole. The analysis in Chapter 4 of the 
Draft RMP identified the changes as sensitive, 
but does not identify them as pleasing or objec- 
tionable. A reservoir would change the four 
basic elements of visual contrasts which include 
line, form, texture, and color. 

Category: Lands 

LAND-1 

COMMENT: Any disposal of land within the 
Zion Scenic Corridor would compromise the 
experience of the scenic beauty of the area. 
Why is BLM proposing to dispose of these lands 
so integral to the "Zion experience?". 

RESPONSE: In response to numerous com- 
ments and local concerns about the lands 
between La Verkin and Springdale, and as a 
result of field examinations, BLM has reconsid- 
ered its land ownership changes in this area. 
Generally, federal lands within view of the 
state's scenic Highway 9 would be retained in 
public ownership. Refer to the Lands section 
and coincident map in the Proposed Plan. 

LAND-2 

COMMENT: Why isn't the Dixie Resource Area 
using land outside of Washington County for the 
completion of the land trades required for the 
Washington County Habitat Conservation area? 
Identify other lands that can be used. 

RESPONSE: Other lands within the state are 
currently being used as part of the land 
exchange process for the County's Habitat 
Conservation Area. Proposals have included 
lands in Park City, Kane County, and Iron 
County, among others. Moreover, many of the 
private land owners in the Conservation Area 
are local residents who would like to remain in 
Washington County and are not interested in 
exchanging lands in other areas. 

LAND-3 

COMMENT: BLM should retain lands within 
and adjacent to the Rockville City limits in pub- 
lic ownership. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.32 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



RESPONSE: There are no public lands identi- 
fied for disposal in the Proposed Plan near 
Rockville. Generally, federal lands within view 
of the state's scenic Highway 9 would be 
retained in public ownership. See additional 
information in the Lands section and on the 
coincident map. 

LAND-4 

COMMENT: BLM should not dispose of lands 
south of the Santa Clara River T. 25, 1 6 W. or 
north of the Santa Clara River on the west 
boundary of 42 S., 1 6 W. These lands have 
value to the Santa Clara River system and open 
space needs for the future. 

RESPONSE: Descriptions of these lands in the 
comment were inaccurate or not specific 
enough to know exactly what tracts of land are 
of concern. However, BLM is currently under a 
land exchange agreement with the State 
Institutional Trust Lands to exchange lands in T. 
42 S., R. 1 6 W (see Lands map) for lands within 
the Washington County Habitat Conservation 
Area. Lands along the Santa Clara River have 
been pulled out of this exchange proposal. 

LAND-5 

COMMENT: Delete the easement acquisition 
across Trees Ranch in Alternative C as an alter- 
native trail has already been agreed to with the 
National Park Service. 

RESPONSE: The Proposed Plan reflects this 
deletion. 

LAND-6 

COMMENT: The BLM should add lands in T. 42 
S., R. TOW. section 6 as acquisition lands in the 
Proposed Plan to reflect the interests expressed 
by the town of Springdale and Zion National 
Park. 

RESPONSE: Acquisition by the federal govern- 
ment is no longer feasible due to current 
landowner development of the property. 

LAND-7 

COMMENT: Existing utility corridors should be 
so designated in the Proposed Plan and should 
be identified as useable for future expansion. 



RESPONSE: Only two existing utility corridors 
are currently designated in the Dixie Resource 
Area: IPP Corridor and the Navajo-McCullough 
Corridor. Both of these corridors would contin- 
ue to be utilized for new projects. The 
Proposed Plan does identify 10 additional utility 
corridors intended for future use. Please see the 
Lands section and Utility Corridor Map in the 
Proposed Plan. 

LAND-8 

COMMENT: All corridors identified in the 
Western Regional Corridor Study should be des- 
ignated for use as corridors in the Proposed 
Plan. 

RESPONSE: The Western Regional Corridor 
Study has been taken into consideration in the 
Proposed Plan. The Study identifies three corri- 
dors in the resource area: the Navajo- 
McCullough Corridor, the IPP Corridor, and a 
utility corridor running north of St. George 
through the Washington County HCP Reserve 
and over to S.R. 18 through Veyo. The 
Proposed Plan identifies the first two corridors; 
however, the corridor through the Washington 
County HCP Reserve has been modified to coin- 
cide directly with S.R. 1 8. Rights-of-way will 
continue to be allowed on a case-by-case basis 
in this area in accordance with the HCP utility 
protocol. No additional designated corridors 
are anticipated within the HCP. 

LAND-9 

COMMENT: The upgrade of utilities within 
existing corridors should be allowed as a 
"Categorical Exclusion". 

RESPONSE: The determination of NEPA 
requirements for the upgrading of existing utili- 
ties is dependent upon the extent of the 
upgrade. Often, upgrading of existing utilities 
can be allowed under the existing right-of-way 
grant with no additional NEPA requirements. If 
substantial changes are made to a right-of-way, 
an environmental assessment or even an envi- 
ronmental impact statement could be required. 
Upgrading of utilities within an existing right-of- 
way is allowed under a Categorical Exclusion 
only when there is no additional surface distur- 
bance or impact to the human environment. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ANU FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.33 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



LAND-10 

COMMENT: How will lands be disposed of in 
an equitable manner through the exchange 
process? Is there a general management policy 
for disposals? 

RESPONSE: Land exchanges would be com- 
pleted in accordance with land exchange regu- 
lations found in 43 CFR part 2200. A decision 
to dispose of land through exchange is made 
only after determining that the exchange will 
serve the public interest. General management 
policy for disposals is to ensure that the BLM 
receive lands with public values when exchang- 
ing out of other public lands. All lands under 
exchange, both federal and non-federal, must 
comply with the appraisal standards set forth in 
43 CFR part 2201 and with the Department of 
Justice's "Uniform Appraisal Standards for 
Federal Land Acquisition". 

LAND-11 

COMMENT: How is the 80 acres of public 
land across the river from Grafton proposed to 
be managed? 

RESPONSE: The majority of the 80 acres of 
public land across from Grafton, and partially 
transected by the Virgin River, would be man- 
aged in accordance with the preliminary deci- 
sions described under the Riparian Resources 
section of the Proposed Plan. Future partner- 
ships with other agencies or conservation 
groups could help BLM manage this area and 
protect the riparian and floodplain resources. 
BLM is also working with Zion National Park to 
help implement their transportation plan. In 
doing so, the acreage currently under a Utah 
DOT gravel permit could be converted to a 
Visitor Contact Station for the Park. See the sec- 
tion in the Proposed Plan under Special 
Emphasis Areas, Zion National Park 
Coordination. In addition, portions of the 80- 
acre site could become an integral part of the 
Grafton rehabilitation project and be used for a 
parking area and pathway to a new footbridge 
across the Virgin River to the old Grafton Town 
site. 

LAND-12 

COMMENT: The Draft RMP states on page 2.34 
that public lands within designated corridors 



would be retained in public ownership unless 
their disposal would not conflict with the corri- 
dor objectives. Why, then, are lands identified 
for disposal between Virgin and Rockville when 
they are within this corridor? 

RESPONSE: Due to the scenic sensitivity of the 
area and in light of the state highway designa- 
tion of a Scenic Byway, the Proposed Plan 
shows adjustments to the potential land dispos- 
als in this area. Please see the Lands section of 
the Proposed Plan. 

LAND-13 

COMMENT: Why aren't federal conservation 
easements being considered as an alternative to 
land acquisition within the HCP. 

RESPONSE: Federal conservation easements 
would be considered as an alternative in acqui- 
sitions where it is practical and makes sense. 
With respect to the private lands within the 
HCP, a myriad of landowner issues, as well as 
the pragmatics of financing, make such ease- 
ments difficult. Such easements would need to 
be granted in perpetuity and allow no noncon- 
forming development within the HCP. To date, 
BLM has found that purchase, exchange, or 
donation in the HCP has worked best in meet- 
ing the public's needs as well as private 
landowner's needs. 

LAND-14 

COMMENT: Explain the difference between 
sale and exchange and why exchange is 
preferred. 

RESPONSE: Land sales and land exchanges 
have different Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act (FLPMA) requirements. Land 
sales procedures are regulated under 43 CFR 
Part 2710 in accordance with FLPMA. Land 
sales must meet specific disposal criteria listed 
under 43 CFR 2710.0-3, must be made only in 
implementation of an approved land use plan, 
be initiated by the BLM, and follow a specific 
bidding process. On the other hand, land 
exchanges are regulated by 43 CFR Part 2200 in 
accordance with FLPMA. Land exchanges are 
discretionary in nature, must be determined to 
be in the public interest, must be of equal value 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.34 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



or equalized in accordance witin the methods 
set forth in 43 CFR 2201 .6, must be within the 
same state, and among other policies, must be 
in conformance with the land use plan. It is 
currently the Secretary of the Interior's policy to 
consider exchanges over other forms of land dis- 
posal because it helps achieve other public pur- 
poses and is prudent to do so, BLM has identi- 
fied private and state lands with important pub- 
lic values that would be in the public interest to 
acquire. By selling land, we lose an opportuni- 
ty to acquire those lands by exchange. 

LAND-15 

COMMENT: Acquisition described in 
Alternative D for lands along the Virgin River 
within Zones 4 and 5 of the HCP should be car- 
ried over into the Proposed Plan. 

RESPONSE: The Proposed Plan does identify 
the majority of these lands for acquisition in 
accordance with the Washington County 
Habitat Conservation Plan. See the Lands map 
in the Proposed Plan for clarification. 

LAND-16 

COMMENT: The Draft RMP does not address 
the impact the land disposal would have on 
riparian habitat. 

RESPONSE: Impacts from disposal of riparian 
habitat are discussed in the Draft RMP on page 
4.41, right column, paragraph two, and on page 
4.45, left column, paragraph three. BLM ripari- 
an policy is to exchange lands only when the 
public lands would be enhanced through equal 
or better riparian habitat. The goals of exchange 
would be to improve or enhance existing BLM 
riparian areas. In addition, see the Proposed 
Plan Riparian section for additional information 
concerning riparian land changes. 

LAND-17 

COMMENT: The proposed right-of-way corridor 
along the north side of Red Mountain 
ACECAVSA should require that lines be placed 
underground to protect the natural quality on 
1,140 acres within the Red Mountain WSA. 

RESPONSE: A 345 kV powerline is already 
located in this proposed corridor. Requiring 



utility companies to place lines underground in 
this remote area is monetarily unfeasible and 
unreasonable. This corridor is outside the WSA 
and there are no requirements for buffer zones. 
Each proposal for use of the corridor would be 
independently analyzed for its impacts to WSA 
values and appropriate mitigation measures 
would be stipulated. 

LAND-18 

COMMENT: What does the new land exchange 
criteria do that current federal regulations can't? 

RESPONSE: The criteria is used to determine 
when land ownership changes would be consid- 
ered in the public interest when the affected 
lands are not specifically identified for transfer 
or acquisition in a resource management plan. 
The use of this criteria has proven to be a suc- 
cessful method of compiling and assimilating 
the numerous policies, regulations, and authori- 
ties that allow for land changes in a resource 
management plan. The fact that numerous regu- 
lations and statutes exist that allow for land 
ownership changes does not necessarily mean 
that the change can take place. These criteria 
provide the mechanism by which specific land 
changes may be considered as resource man- 
agement plans are implemented well into the 
future without having to complete a land use 
plan amendment. 

LAND-19 

COMMENT: Explain why the original Instant 
Study Area is a right-of-way exclusion area and 
the rest of the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC is a 
right-of-way avoidance area. 

RESPONSE: This inconsistency has been cor- 
rected in the Proposed Plan as well as included 
in the Errata Sheet. As the Instant Study Area is 
within the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC, all of the 
ACEC would be a right-of-way avoidance area 
and not an exclusion area. 

LAND-20 

COMMENT: BLM is not following Department 
of the Interior policy and basic planning by not 
including a map showing transportation systems 
in the "No Action" alternative. Regardless of 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FJNAL ENVIRONMENTAL rMPACT STATEMENT 



5.35 



CHAPTER 5 • PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



ownership, these roads should still be displayed 
on a map. What roads will be available for use? 

RESPONSE: Please see the discussion of R.S. 
2477 roads on page 4.5 of the Draft RMP. 
Current R.S. 2477 assertions will not be 
resolved until administrative processes are put 
into place by new regulations, federal court 
action, or legislation in the U.S. Congress. A 
section on Transportation has been added to the 
Proposed Plan and provides further information. 
Lack of resolution of R.S. 2477 issues at the 
national and state levels prevents finalization of 
a complete transportation plan. However, a 
transportation plan map covering the Dixie 
Resource Area is available at the Cedar City 
District Office. 

LAND-21 

COMMENT: Alternative A failed to recognize 
the existing Navajo-McCullough or 1-15 Utility 
Corridors. 

RESPONSE: The Navajo-McCullough Corridor 
was discussed in Chapter 3 and inadvertently 
left off the map for Alterative A. The Errata 
Sheet incorporates this oversight. The Virgin 
River Management Framework Plan does not 
designate an 1-15 Utility Corridor for inclusion 
into the No Action alternative. 

LAND-22 

COMMENT: Alternative A identified OHV 
Closed Areas, OHV Areas Limited to Designated 
Roads and Trails, Riparian Areas, Cultural Sites, 
VRM Class II Areas, Desert Tortoise Critical 
Habitat, andT&E and Candidate Plant Habitat 
as Avoidance Areas. The Virgin River MFP had 
no such designation. This assumption must be 
corrected. 

RESPONSE: Although the MFP did not specifi- 
cally identify "avoidance areas", the categories 
noted in the comment require restrictions on 
activities and would still be applied to any new 
applications for rights-of-way on a case-by-case 
basis to protect critical resources. Avoidance by 
means of bypassing, circumventing, or routing 
around an important resources would still be a 
part of mitigation applied before or during the 
NEPA process. Other alternatives would be 



sought in those areas that are determined to 
have resource values that must be avoided by 
law, regulation, or policy. A change has been 
made to the title and legend of Map 2A.2 in the 
Draft RMP as reflected in the Errata Sheet. 

LAND-23 

COMMENT: On pg. 2.15, column 1, paragraph 
6, the statement at the end of this paragraph 
regarding land tenure adjustments states, "and 
are in accordance with land exchange goals and 
objectives and other RMP planning decisions" is 
ambiguous and impossible to interpret exactly 
what is intended, especially since no RMP plan- 
ning decisions have yet been made. 

RESPONSE: It is important to understand that 
all resource decisions portrayed under each 
alternative of the Draft RMP and the Proposed 
Plan are linked to one another. Consistency 
with other decisions made in each alternative of 
the Draft RMP and the Proposed Plan is integral 
to the lands program. The land exchange goals 
and objectives are further defined in the 
Proposed Plan under the Lands section. RMP 
planning decisions are preliminary decisions 
until the Record of Decision is signed at the end 
of the planning process. Until that time, refer- 
ence to RMP planning decisions are those pre- 
liminary decisions set forth in the alternatives of 
the Draft RMP or in the Proposed Plan. 

LAND-24 

COMMENT: For analysis purposes, it is not rea- 
sonable to assume that all lands within the full 
width of a right-of-way would necessarily be 
disturbed. 

RESPONSE: This is true; however, under a right- 
of-way application, the full width would be 
included within the grant to the private, state, or 
other entity. Case-by-case analysis of each 
application would include the affected portion 
of each right-of-way and cultural and biological 
clearances would be mandated for the full por- 
tion. For general purposes of this broad 
overview, the assumption that the full width 
could be disturbed is warranted. 

LAND-25 

COMMENT: There is a need for a utility corri- 
dor to connect the IPP corridor to the Navajo- 
McCullough corridor on the west slope of 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.36 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



Beaver Dam Mountains and on the west side of 
the Beaver Dam Wash adjacent to the Nevada 
border. 

RESPONSE: Due to the sensitivity of desert tor- 
toise critical habitat and a tristate ACEC within 
this area, it is highly improbable that a new cor- 
ridor would ever be designated within this area. 
Individual rights-of-way on a case-by-case basis 
would be considered. See Proposed Plan, 
Lands section. 

LAND-26 

COMMENT: What is the difference between a 
right-of-way and a utility corridor? 

RESPONSE: A right-of-way means the public 
lands are authorized to be used or occupied 
pursuant to a right-of-way grant. A right-of-way 
grant may be issued to an individual, partner- 
ship, corporation, association, or other business 
entity, and any federal, state, or local govern- 
mental entity including municipal corporations 
authorizing the use of a right-of-way over, upon, 
under, or through public lands for construction, 
operation, maintenance, and termination of a 
project. A utility corridor is a corridor that has 
been formally designated across any public 
lands, allowing for numerous rights-of-way with- 
in a specific area. A corridor is defined as a lin- 
ear strip of land which may or may not have a 
prescribed width, and which is limited by tech- 
nological aspects, environmental considerations, 
topographical limits, or significant land uses. A 
corridor is a land use designation, identified to 
provide policy and planning direction regarding 
preferred locations of compatible linear facili- 
ties. A primary purpose of designating corridors 
in the RMP is to "minimize adverse environ- 
mental impacts and the proliferation of separate 
rights-of-way" and to comply with the mandate 
for "utilization of rights-of-way in common. ..to 
the extent practical" (FLPMA, Section 503). 
Aspects to be considered in designating corri- 
dors are: "national and state land use policies, 
environmental quality, economic efficiency, 
national security, safety, and good engineering 
and technological processes." (FLPMA Section 
503). Designation of corridors does not imply 
entitlement of use or assure the automatic grant- 
ing of new rights-of-way for linear facilities. 
FLPMA states that existing transportation routes 



and utility corridors may be designated as corri- 
dors, but it does not require it. Generally, corri- 
dor designation addresses the need for major 
cross-country routes rather than local distribu- 
tion networks. Local transportation and utility 
proposals are usually considered on an individ- 
ual basis without corridor designations. Project 
specific rights-of-way are required across public 
land regardless of corridor designation. 

LAND-27 

COMMENT: Why wasn't the Lake Powell 
pipeline that is proposed to empty into Sand 
Hollow Reservoir included in this Resource 
Management Plan? 

RESPONSE: The feasibility study for the Lake 
Powell pipeline project was completed after the 
cut-off date for inclusion of new material for the 
Draft RMP. The study stated that this project 
was not expected to be considered for 20 years 
or more due to budgetary constraints and antici- 
pated future growth patterns in Washington 
County. This timeframe would place project 
implementation beyond the expected life cycle 
of the Proposed Plan. The proposed pipeline is 
referenced in the Proposed Plan. BLM would 
continue to consider rights-of-way on a case-by- 
case basis when found consistent with the cur- 
rent Land Use Plan. 

LAND-28 

COMMENT: Obstruction of mineral develop- 
ment of State Trust lands by imposing restric- 
tions on adjacent or surrounding federal lands 
would keep the Trust Lands Administration from 
fulfilling their fiduciary duties to administer the 
trust corpus in a manner which obtains the opti- 
mum values from the trust lands; any trust lands 
so encumbered should be included as lands to 
be acquired by the BLM through purchase or 
exchange. 

RESPONSE: BLM policy, as required by Court 
decision (State of Utah vs. Andrus, Oct.1, 1979) 
is that BLM must provide reasonable access to 
inheld lands. Therefore, if valid uses are 
allowed on State Trust Lands, BLM would allow 
access across public lands to support these uses. 
Acquisition of inholdings in selected areas is 
addressed in the Lands section of the Proposed 
Plan. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.37 



CHAPTER 5 • PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



LAND 29 

COMMENT: If lands identified by the state for 
selection and classified in accordance with 43 
CFR part 2400 would be considered consistent 
with the Plan, then lands applied for under the 
Recreation and Public Purposes Act for 
exchanges and sales which are classified under 
Part 2400 should also be considered consistent 
with the Plan. 

RESPONSE: In accordance with 43 CFR part 
2620, the Sate of Utah may exercise its right to 
acquire public land through state quantity or 
other special grants. These lands may or may 
not be identified in the Proposed Plan and 
would be considered consistent with the 
Proposed Plan if they are classified as suitable 
in accordance with federal regulations. This 
approach was taken (in accordance with Utah 
BLM policy) to facilitate retirement of the 
remaining debt to the State of Utah under the 
various grant authorities. All other land trans- 
fers, R&PPs, and exchanges would be consid- 
ered consistent with the Proposed Plan if they 
meet one or more of the criteria for land owner- 
ship changes brought forth in the Lands section 
of the Proposed Plan. FLPMA requires that pub- 
lic lands may be sold under section 203 only if 
they are specifically identified for disposal in the 
approved Plan. 

Category: Wild and Scenic Rivers 

WSR-1 

COMMENT: On December 31, 1994, BLM 
entered into an Interagency Agreement to coop- 
eratively define common criteria and processes 
for use in determining the eligibility and suit- 
ability of Utah rivers. The Draft RMP does not 
recognize that agreement and lists 10 segments 
as meeting eligibility standards. Why were 
more wild and scenic river designations being 
added to this Plan? What is the justification 
and scientific evidence to support these desig- 
nations? Findings are not supported by ade- 
quate studies or analysis. Criteria used and 
conclusions made cannot be supported by facts. 
Eligibility was not determined by common 
interagency criteria as requested by the 
Governor and Utah's congressional delegation. 
In order for a river to be eligible, it must have 



an outstandingly remarkable value. It is doubt- 
ful if any portion of the Virgin River satisfies this 
criterion. 

RESPONSE: In order to resolve a protest made 
on the 1991 Proposed Dixie RMP BLM agreed 
to take another look at wild and scenic river 
considerations through this subsequent planning 
effort. BLM does not designate rivers into the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, but 
makes recommendations to Congress regarding 
the eligibility and suitability of rivers for con- 
gressional designation. BLM's authority to 
review rivers within its jurisdiction and make 
recommendations to Congress regarding those 
rivers is found in Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act. The reasons for specific eligi- 
bility findings are identified in Appendix 7 of 
this Proposed Plan. The outcome of the 
Interagency Agreement to which the above com- 
ment refers is the interagency (BLM, FS, NPS) 
document "Wild and Scenic River Review in the 
State of Utah, Process and Criteria for 
interagency Use." its use as guidance for this 
effort is also discussed in Appendix 7. Although 
this interagency document was completed after 
initial eligibility findings had been made, the 
process and criteria used to make those findings 
were generally consistent with those identified 
in the interagency document. In keeping with 
the coordination efforts espoused by the agree- 
ment, BLM has coordinated with the FS and 
NPS regarding river segments that are contigu- 
ous with segments on other agency lands. BLM 
has also entered into a separate Memorandum 
of Understanding (MOU) with Zion National 
Park dated February 1998. This MOU provides 
that some public land river segments contiguous 
to segments within Zion National Park will be 
studied as part of the current planning effort for 
Zion National Park. BLM continues to believe 
that portions of the Virgin River are eligible. 
Refer to Appendix 7 in the Proposed Plan for 
additional information. 

WSR-2 

COMMENT: BLM's selection criteria was 
flawed considering that out of all the stream 
segments reviewed, only 10 were found eligi- 
ble. Many more streams have outstandingly 
remarkable values then were identified as hav- 
ing them. BLM failed to properly assess the out- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.38 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



standingly remarkable nature of certain values 
(such as threatened or endangered species iden- 
tified in connection with more than 30 streams). 
BLM guidelines state: "Of particular importance 
is the presence of federal or state-listed, threat- 
ened or endangered species, or unique habitat 
or critical habitat links for these species." Rivers 
that should have been found eligible for such 
outstanding attributes as cultural sites, endan- 
gered species habitat, or outstanding scenery 
include Leeds Creek, North Creek, Beaver Dam 
Wash, Moody Wash, and Bear Trap Canyon. 
Alternative C is based upon a narrow and con- 
trived application of the standards of outstand- 
ingly remarkable values. 

RESPONSE: The term "outstandingly remarkable 
value" is not defined by the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act, other than that it includes scenic, 
recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, 
cultural, or other similar values. A guideline 
generally accepted by the federal agencies is 
that determinations of outstandingly remarkable 
values should be a matter of informed profes- 
sional judgment. BLM Manual 8351 contains 
descriptions of the nature of outstandingly 
remarkable values. These descriptions are 
meant to be illustrative rather than definitive or 
all-inclusive. For example, although the pres- 
ence of endangered species within a river is an 
indicator that an outstandingly remarkable value 
may exist, the uniqueness, rarity, or exemplary 
nature of that value within a regional, physio- 
graphic, or geographic comparative basis is also 
considered. BLM revisited previous findings of 
identified streams based on comments. Refer to 
comments WSR-3a, WSR-3b, WSR-3c, WSR-3d, 
and Appendix 6 in this Proposed Plan. 

WSR-3 

COMMENT: BLM failed to properly include as 
eligible many other rivers that are free-flowing 
and possess one or more outstandingly remark- 
able values. The "40 percent rule " was illegally 
applied to eliminate rivers. 

RESPONSE: BLM inventoried for eligibility on 
all rivers of which it was aware within the plan- 
ning area. The "40 percent rule" was not 
applied. Appendix 7 lists free-flowing segments 
and outstandingly remarkable values that were 
identified. These findings are based upon pro- 



fessional judgement using available information, 
including input from other agencies, local gov- 
ernments, and the public. The findings reflect 
changes from the Draft RMP in response to pub- 
lic comment. 

WSR-3a 

COMMENT: BLM inaccurately applied the defi- 
nition of "free-flowing" to mean those rivers 
which are "boatable or floatable". Fourteen 
rivers appear to have been deemed noneligible 
solely on the basis that they flow intermittently. 
These are Bear Canyon, Black Canyon, 
Cottonwood Creek, Cougar Canyon, Dry Creek, 
Dry Sandy Creek, Dry Wash, Graveyard Wash, 
Jackson Wash, Leap Creek, Little Creek, Sand 
Cove Wash, Wet Sandy Creek, and Willis Creek. 
According to proper procedure, these rivers 
should have been disqualified only if they 
flowed intermittently and had no outstanding 
values. 

RESPONSE: BLM did not consider whether or 
not a river was "boatable or floatable" as a fac- 
tor in its wild and scenic review. In fact, many 
of the river segments l"ound by BLM to be free- 
flowing are neither "boatable or floatable." 
BLM used the definition of free-flowing that is 
provided by Section 1 6(b) of the Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act and in BLM's 8351 Manual as 
"...existing or flowing in natural condition with- 
out impoundment, diversion, straightening, 
ripraping, or other modification of the waterway. 
The existence, however, of low dams, diversion 
works, and other minor structures at the time 
any river is proposed for inclusion in the nation- 
al wild and scenic rivers system shall not auto- 
matically bar its consideration for inclusion...." 
BLM's 8351.31 Manual provides further clarifi- 
cation when it says that "the volume of flow is 
sufficient if it is enough to maintain the out- 
standingly remarkable values identified within 
the segment." As far as the 14 ephemeral seg- 
ments are concerned, the commentor did not 
identify any outstandingly remarkable values 
that had been overlooked. However, in 
response to the comment, BLM has reevaluated 
the 14 ephemeral segments that had previously 
been assessed as non-free-flowing in the 1995 
Draft RMP. All but one (Dry Sandy Creek) of the 
14 identified river segments possess sufficient 
flows and riverine characteristics to determine 



DIXIE RESOURCE ARgA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.39 



CHAPTER 5 ' PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



them free-flowing. However, none of the identi- 
fied segments contain an outstandingly remark- 
able river-related value; thus, all 14 segments 
remain ineligible. Note, however, that Willis 
Creek will be reevaluated in conjunction with 
its contiguous river segment within Zion 
National Park when the Park completes its gen- 
eral management plan. 

WSR-3b 

COMMENT: BLM left out many streams that 
should have been found eligible. BLM improp- 
erly applied the standard of regional signifi- 
cance in order to exclude free-flowing streams 
with outstandingly remarkable values from fur- 
ther consideration. Streams that were so 
excluded include: Bear Trap Canyon, Beaver 
Dam Wash, Docs Pass Canyon, Goose Creek, 
Gould Wash, Grapevine Wash, Horse Valley 
Wash, Jackson Spring Wash, Leeds Creek, 
Magotsu Creek, Moody Wash, North Ash Creek, 
North Creek, West Fork O'Neal Gulch, Pine 
Park Canyon, Quail Creek, Second Creek, Sheep 
Canyon, Sheep Corral Canyon, Short Creek, 
Shunes Creek, South Creek, Squirrel Canyon, 
and Water Canyon. 

RESPONSE: BLM believes that regional signifi- 
cance was properly applied. BLM Manual 8351 
discusses regional or national significance as 
factors for consideration in determining out- 
standingly remarkable values. In order to deter- 
mine whether or not a river-related value has 
regional significance, the review team identi- 
fied the planning area as a place where three 
major geographic areas (Great Basin, Colorado 
Plateau, and Mojave Desert) transition together. 
The uniqueness of that transition was taken into 
consideration as rivers were compared against 
other rivers within their respective geographic 
areas. This comparison was not done in order to 
exclude streams from consideration, but rather 
to understand if any of the streams possess val- 
ues of regional significance. BLM continues to 
believe that the river-related values identified for 
most of the 24 streams are not of regional signif- 
icance. Note that values in Bear Trap Canyon, 
Shunes Creek, and Goose Creek will be reevalu- 
ated in conjunction with contiguous river seg- 
ments within Zion National Park when the Park 
completes its general management plan. 



WSR-3C 

COMMENT: The BLM arbitrarily and capricious- 
ly excluded from the list of eligible rivers ones 
that it had previously identified as eligible. 
These include Bear Trap Canyon, Goose Creek, 
North Creek, Pine Park Canyon, Quail Creek, 
and Shunes Creek. Also, Maxwell Canyon, 
which was identified in May 1993 as eligible, is 
now not even found free-flowing. 

RESPONSE: As a standard part of its wild and 
scenic review process, Utah BLM provided for a 
public comment period on preliminary eligibili- 
ty findings. The intent is to receive as much 
input as possible on river values before deciding 
which rivers are in fact eligible for further con- 
sideration in the planning process. The list of 
rivers identified in the May 1993 "Planning 
Update" was a preliminary findings list wherein 
public review and comment was requested. It is 
true that some rivers shown in the preliminary 
listing as eligible were not identified as eligible 
in a later "Planning Update" or in the Draft 
RMR This is not because of any arbitrary capri- 
cious action on BLM's part, but rather because 
the comments received from the public in 
response to the May 1993 Planning Update 
were carefully considered and further review 
was done before BLM determined which rivers 
were, in fact, eligible to be considered further in 
this planning effort. Reasons for the determina- 
tions have been clearly documented in 
Appendix 7 of this Proposed Plan. Note that the 
eligibility of BLM-managed portions of Bear Trap 
Canyon and Goose Creek will be reevaluated in 
conjunction with contiguous river segments in 
Zion National Park as the Park develops its gen- 
eral management plan. 

WSR-3d 

COMMENT: Many miles of rivers were improp- 
erly excluded by BLM from further review of 
their suitability. The Virgin River is the most 
notable example. Home to Virgin spinedace. 
Virgin River chub, and woundfin minnows, over 
60 miles of the Virgin River deserves to be pro- 
tected. The East and North Fork of the Virgin 
River, La Verkin Creek, Orderville Creek, Santa 
Clara River, Deep Creek, and Beaver Dam Wash 
also need protection. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.40 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



RESPONSE: Most of the Virgin River on BLM- 
managed lands in Washington County was 
found eligible and reviewed for suitability. The 
BLM-managed portion of the East Fork and 
Orderville Creek are not managed under BLM's 
Dixie Resource Area and therefore are not 
included in this planning effort. The North Fork 
of the Virgin River, Deep Creek, and portions of 
La Verkin Creek were found eligible and 
reviewed for suitability. Although not originally 
found eligible, the mainstem of Beaver Dam 
Wash was revisited based upon comments 
received on the Draft RMP. As a result of reseg- 
mentation, an additional segment has now been 
found eligible and reviewed for suitability. 
Please refer to Appendix 7 and Appendix 8 for 
additional information. Also refer to the 
response for WSR-2. 

WSR-3e 

COMMENT: The following streams should be 
designated into the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System: Ash Creek, Bear Trap Canyon, 
Beaver Dam Wash, Beaver Dam Wash-East Fork, 
Beaver Dam Wash-West Fork, Birch Creek, Bull 
Canyon, Bunker Peak Wash, Coal Pits Wash, 
Cottonwood Spring Wash, Cottonwood Wash, 
Deep Creek/Crystal Creek, Docs Pass Canyon, 
Ep Creek, Fort Pearce Wash, Goose Creek, 
Gould Wash, Grape Vine Wash, Grape Vine 
Spring Wash, Horse Valley Wash, Jackson Spring 
Wash, La Verkin Creek/ Smith Creek, Leeds 
Creek, Magotsu Creek, Moody Creek, North 
Fork Virgin River, North Ash Creek, North Creek, 
Oak Creel</Kolob Creek, Pine Park Canyon, 
Quail Creek, Santa Clara River, Second Creek, 
Sheep Canyon, Sheep Corral Canyon, Short 
Creek, Shunes Creek, South Creek, Squirrel 
Canyon, Tobin Wash, Virgin River, Water 
Canyon, West Fork O'Neal Gulch. (No reasons 
were provided.) 

RESPONSE: Not all of the listed streams are eli- 
gible or suitable. Refer to Appendix 7 and 
Appendix 8 of this Proposed Plan for additional 
information. 

WSR-4 

COMMENT: The BLM has done an incomplete 
suitability analysis based on what is contained 



in Appendix 7 of the Draft RMR One of the cri- 
teria in particular that was not analyzed is 
whether or not there is local and state support 
for designation. 

RESPONSE: The purpose of the suitability com- 
ponent is to determine whether rivers are appro- 
priate additions to the national system by con- 
sidering tradeoffs between river corridor devel- 
opment and river protection. This was done in 
the Draft RMP by analyzing the impacts that 
would result from alternative ways of managing 
the river corridors. Some suitability criteria 
could not be fully addressed until public com- 
ments were received on the Draft RMP The 
suitability analysis in Appendix 8 of this 
Proposed Plan has been updated based on com- 
ments received. Also refer to the Wild and 
Scenic Rivers portion of the Proposed Plan 
under the Special Emphasis Areas section. 

WSR-5 

COMMENT: Dixie National Forest and Zion 
National Park officials identified eight streams in 
their areas as eligible for wild and scenic river 
study and there was no discussion of these 
streams in the Dixie Draft RMP. These include 
for the FS, the Main and East Forks of the Beaver 
Dam Wash, Leap Creek, Leeds Creek, Magotsu 
Creek, Pine Park Canyon, Tobin Wash, and for 
the NPS, North Creek. 

RESPONSE: BLM did review the BLM-managed 
segments of these streams and the findings are 
documented in Appendix 7. Although BLM 
consulted with the Dixie National Forest and 
Zion National Park for consistency regarding 
rivers within their respective jurisdictions, the 
Dixie RMP deals specifically with river segments 
on BLM-managed lands within the planning 
area, not Forest Service and National Park seg- 
ments that are outside the planning area. The 
Forest Service had not found their portion of the 
streams eligible, but had simply begun review of 
those segments, which was subsequently cur- 
tailed. In order to further facilitate coordination, 
BLM and NPS have entered into an agreement 
to reconsider some stream segments on BLM- 
managed lands that are contiguous to stream 
segments within Zion National Park during the 
current planning effort for the Park. North 



DIXIE RESOURCi: AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

5.41 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EiS AND RESPONSES 



Creek is not included in this study due to the 
private lands that separate the Park lands from 
the public lands and the changes in characteris- 
tics of the river corridor between the two juris- 
dictions. An agreement to jointly study rivers 
that are contiguous with the Dixie National 
Forest will also be considered when planning 
efforts are begun for forest lands. 

WSR-6 

COMMENT: Why wasn't the Beaver Dam 
Wash determined eligible? The cottonwood 
groves along the wash north of Lytle Ranch, the 
vistas of the Beaver Dam Mountains, the soli- 
tude and lack of human impacts, all give this 
area a character worthy of wild and scenic river 
designation. 

RESPONSE: BLM reviewed previous findings 
regarding the main stem of the Beaver Dam 
Wash. As a result of that review and resegmen- 
tation, a segment of the Beaver Dam Wash both 
south and north of Lytle Ranch has now been 
determined eligible. Refer to Appendix 7 for 
more information. Solitude and lack of human 
impacts are wilderness values rather than wild 
and scenic values. 

WSR-7 

COMMENT: BLM improperly determined eligi- 
bility because there was no local government 
input and the values were not compared on a 
regional basis. The area of consideration should 
have included the Colorado Plateau. 
Washington County's General Plan finds that 
none of the rivers are eligible for inclusion in 
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 
Why was the general plan ignored? Wild and 
scenic studies should not be done until they can 
be done jointly with local and state agencies on 
a statewide or Colorado River Basin basis. 

RESPONSE: There was local government input 
regarding eligibility. BLM asked for and 
received state and local government input on 
preliminary eligibility findings. BLM also asked 
for and received comments from local govern- 
ments and the public as part of the scoping 
process for the Draft RMP. BLM has also 
received comments from state and local govern- 
ments on the Draft RMP. Values were compared 



on a regional basis. As discussed in Appendix 7 
of this Proposed Plan, BLM defined the region 
of consideration as the transitional zone of the 
Colorado Plateau, the Great Basin, and the 
Mojave Desert, Outstandingly remarkable 
values for each identified free-flowing river 
were analyzed in the context of the specific 
geographic area within which each river flows. 
There is no requirement that joint studies be 
done on a statewide basis, although a significant 
effort has been made to develop common 
criteria and provide intergovernmental coordi- 
nation for wild and scenic studies in the State 
of Utah. BLM did not ignore findings made 
by Washington County; it just does not agree 
with those comments. See Appendix 7 for the 
reasons. 

WSR-8 

COMMENT: The current MFP does not mention 
wild and scenic rivers, but in spite of this the 
"no action" alternative includes protective man- 
agement for 63 miles of streams. What authori- 
ty did BLM use to exercise protective manage- 
ment on 63 miles of streams in connection with 
a wild and scenic river inventory? It is also not 
appropriate to apply protective management to 
streams proposed as suitable. The Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act does not provide such authori- 
ty. The Act provides authority for BLM to initiate 
studies and investigations and make recommen- 
dations to Congress, but protective management 
is inappropriate until such congressional desig- 
nation is made for those components. 

RESPONSE: The 53 miles of streams were 
found eligible for further planning based on an 
inventory that preceded the publication of the 
Draft RMP. It is true that the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act does not provide the authority to pro- 
tect these segments. The Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act (FLPMA), Section 302, 
provides general protection authority for BLM- 
managed public lands, and is the authority BLM 
uses for case-by-case protection of river-related 
values during the period of time that the RMP is 
in a draft stage. This is consistent with BLM pol- 
icy in BLM Manual 8351 . Refer to Appendix 7 
for additional information. It is important to 
note that until a land use plan has been com- 
pleted, the general protective authority under 
FLPMA Section 302 does not change the man- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.42 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



agement of the river. Whenever development is 
proposed along eligible river segments, alterna- 
tives would be considered in NEPA documents 
to mitigate impacts to the values that make the 
river eligible. BLM has determined that full pro- 
tective management would only be applied to 
segments recommended as suitable once the 
Record of Decision is approved. Section 202 of 
FLPMA is BLM's planning authority, and pro- 
vides for protection of suitable segments 
through specific management actions identified 
in the completed RMP. Eligible segments not 
found suitable in the completed RMP would no 
longer receive case-by-case protection, and 
would be managed according to decisions in 
the RMP 



Scenic Rivers Act, in which Congress directs 
federal agencies to consider the potential for 
national wild, scenic, and recreational river 
areas in all planning for the use and develop- 
ment of water and related land resources. The 
study has been conducted in accordance with 
BLM Manual 8351 which provides wild and 
scenic river policy and program direction. The 
Joint Department of Interior and Agriculture 
guidelines were crafted in 1982 to provide con- 
sistency for specific river studies mandated by 
Section 5(a) of the Act. They were never adopt- 
ed as regulations. Their use today as guidance 
is only as directed by the agencies. More recent 
guidance is BLM Manual 8351, published in 
May 1992 and amended in December 1993. 



WSR-9 

COMMENT: There is no analysis or description 
of the impacts resulting from the closures of the 
10 eligible river segments to all other uses 
which may conflict or compete with these des- 
ignations such as mining, reservoirs, rights-of- 
way, grazing, water rights, and off-highway vehi- 
cle use. 

RESPONSE: Alternative D in the Draft RMP 
addressed conflicts with other uses that would 
occur if all 1 eligible segments were found 
suitable and designated by Congress into the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The 
analysis has been revised in the Final RMP 
based on public comment, and addresses 
impacts from implementation of the Proposed 
Plan. Conflicts are also discussed in the updat- 
ed suitability analysis for the eligible segments 
in Appendix 8 of this Proposed Plan. 

WSR-10 

COMMENT: Wild and Scenic Rivers studies 
conducted by the BLM were not in accordance 
with the law or joint Department of the Interior 
and Agriculture regulations. These require that 
"...a team of professionals from interested local, 
state, and federal agencies are to be invited to 
participate by the study agency." No such team 
was organized. 

RESPONSE: The Wild and Scenic Rivers study 
for this RMP effort has been conducted under 
the authority of Section 5(d)(1 ) of the Wild and 



WSR-11 

COMMENT: How would designating 10 streams 
as eligible, or however many as suitable, affect 
reserved water rights? The Draft RMP has little 
or no discussion on the effects that wild and 
scenic designation would have on perfected and 
unperfected water rights. The Draft RMP does 
say that federal reserve water rights may be 
asserted, in the history of water resource man- 
agement and administration, it is evident that 
the federal government never assumed the 
authority to regulate water allocation from the 
individual states. In fact, the McCarren 
Amendment specifically requires the federal 
government to claim and adjudicate its water 
needs in the state water processes. The attempts 
by BLM to designate certain streams as candi- 
dates for inclusion in the National Wild and 
Scenic Rivers System will affect the state's abili- 
ty to administer water resources. By proposing 
the various stream segments for designation, the 
BLM expands the impact of the action to all pri- 
vate and public land and water-rights holders 
located above the proposed reach, affecting 
even the economy of the region. Change appli- 
cations based on existing water rights would be 
subject to the designated flows, and future 
groundwater development and water rights 
transfers would be affected. The Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act would reserve reaches of these 
streams for purposes as set forth under the Act, 
which implies that reserved water rights would 
be claimed. There is concern that BLM will use 
the provision contained in Section 13, para- 
graph (b) of the Act to exercise claimed reserved 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.43 



CHAPTER 5 • PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



water rights independently of Utah water law. 
Such an action would be contrary to historical 
precedent and to principles set forth in the 
McCarren Amendment. If BLM intends to 
claim a federal reserve water right, it should be 
done in accordance with Utah water law and 
the procedures established therein. The effects 
of designation on water rights must be quanti- 
fied and analyzed. 

RESPONSE: Identifying streams as eligible or 
suitable for purposes of planning on public 
lands managed by BLM does not bring with it a 
federal reserve water right, nor does it in any 
way negate existing privately-held water rights. 
The suitable segments identified in the Proposed 
Plan would be managed as identified in the 
Plan, which does not include assertion of feder- 
al reserve water rights. The only time that BLM 
would have any occasion to affect the develop- 
ment of an existing water right would be if an 
entity wished to access public lands in order to 
perfect that water right. In such cases, the pro- 
posed action would be analyzed on a case-by- 
case basis and appropriate mitigation would be 
applied to protect the river values in a manner 
consistent with the land use plan. No federal 
reserve water right would attach unless and until 
Congress designates a specific stream segment 
into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System. Even then, designation of any river seg- 
ment as a result of congressional action would 
be subject to existing rights, privileges, and con- 
tracts. Under Section 1 2 of the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act, termination of such rights, privileges, 
and contracts would happen only with the con- 
sent of the affected non-federal party. Section 
13 of the Act limits federal reserved water rights 
at the time of the designation to amounts neces- 
sary to accomplish the purposes of the Act. 
Such water rights would be junior to existing 
rights, and existing water rights and develop- 
ments on designated streams would not be 
affected by designation or the creation of such 
junior federal reserved water rights. Federal 
law, including Section 1 3 of the Act and the 
McCarren Amendment (43 U.S.C. 666), recog- 
nize state jurisdiction over water adjudications, 
and also allow for federal reserved water rights 
to be adjudicated and protected. BLM recog- 
nizes that water resources within the Virgin 
River system are already fully allocated. If 
Congress designates into the national system 



any of the stream segments on public lands 
being managed under this proposed land use 
plan, BLM would continue to work with affect- 
ed local, state, federal, and tribal partners to 
identify instream flows necessary to meet critical 
resource needs and to promote cooperative, 
innovative strategies under state law to address 
those needs. See the socioeconomic impact 
analysis in the Proposed Plan for additional 
information. 

WSR-12 

COMMENT: Although so-called "suitable" seg- 
ments may only comprise small portions of 
rivers, the effects of wild and scenic designation 
would extend the entire length of a river both to 
its headwaters and below the designated sec- 
tion. Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 
Act precludes any federal agency from "assisting 
by loan, grant or license, or otherwise in the 
construction of any water resources project that 
would have a direct and adverse effect on the 
values for which such river was established..." 
which would include section 404 permits and 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 
licensing as well as other federal assistance and 
permitting. Once designated, any development 
or diversion structures may be precluded or lim- 
ited for the entire length of the river. For exam- 
ple, although only a small portion of the Virgin 
River would be classified as "wild", any 
upstream diversion or change in use may pre- 
vent any assistance or licensing by the federal 
government for water development and storage 
for the entire length of the river and its tribu- 
taries, and would prevent the further use and 
development of water throughout the entire 
reach of the river, notwithstanding the need of 
future water development for local areas. The 
State of Utah specifically will be restricted in 
the future use and development of two large 
blocks of school trust land, one located to the 
south and the other to the north of St. George. 

RESPONSE: All future development upstream or 
downstream of congressionally designated river 
segments would not be barred; allowable devel- 
opment would be determined by its potential 
impact on the river values. The comment 
quotes only a part of a sentence from Section 
7. (a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, but fails 
to identify the following sentence also within 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.44 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



Section 7. (a) which clarifies the intent. That 
sentence states: "Nothing contained in the fore- 
going sentence, however, shall preclude licens- 
ing of, or assistance to, development below or 
above a wild, scenic, or recreational river area 
or on any stream tributary thereto which will 
not invade the area or unreasonably diminish 
the scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife 
values present in the area on the date of desig- 
nation of a river as a component of the National 
Wild and Scenic Rivers System." Therefore, 
should the Virgin River be designated by 
Congress, any potential effects of future devel- 
opment of the two large blocks of school trust 
land on the wild and scenic values of the Virgin 
River would be analyzed. It is not anticipated 
that development of the two large blocks of 
State lands would either invade the river area or 
unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational, 
and fish and wildlife values present in the area, 
as the state land blocks are not located within 
the Virgin River corridor. See the response to 
WSR-1 1 and the socioeconomic impact analysis 
in the Proposed Plan for additional information. 

WSR-1 3 

COMMENT: Suitability findings on five seg- 
ments (LaVerkin Creek/Smith Creek, Virgin River, 
Deep Creel</Crystal Creek, North Fork of the 
Virgin, and Oak Creek/Kolob Creek) would con- 
flict with the reserved water rights settlement for 
Zion National Park. The state is very concerned 
that this agreement could be nullified by the 
actions set forth in the Dixie RMR It is impor- 
tant that these conflicts be resolved. 

RESPONSE: The Proposed Plan recognizes the 
Zion Water Rights Agreement and has been 
made consistent with its terms. See the 
Proposed Plan under Special Emphasis Areas for 
additional information. Although the Agreement 
would allow for some development that could 
result in loss of flows (less than 10 percent) 
within river segments above Zion National Park, 
sufficient water would be left to maintain the 
eligibility and suitability of these segments. 

WSR-1 4 

COMMENT: The wild and scenic rivers suitabil- 
ity figures seem to change from one alternative 
plan to another plan. It is only logical that a 
river segment is either suitable or not, based on 
definition and not on what management is used. 



RESPONSE: The determination of suitability is 
not based on a definition, but as a result of con- 
sideration of several criteria, one of which is: 
"What are the reasonably foreseeable potential 
uses of the land and related waters which would 
be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area 
were included in the NWSRS, and the values 
which would be foreclosed or diminished if the 
area is not protected as part of the NWSRS?" 
An array of suitability alternatives is, therefore, 
analyzed in order to determine what impacts 
would result both with and without wild and 
scenic river protection. According to BLM's 
8351 Manual, at least one alternative analyzed 
in detail shall assume designation of all the eli- 
gible river segments in accordance with the ten- 
tative classifications that have been made, and 
another alternative shall assume no designation. 
Different suitability is thus assumed for each 
alternative in order to facilitate impact analysis. 
Actual determination of suitability is made in 
the Proposed Plan, and is based on the impact 
analysis as well as other factors. Refer to 
Appendix 8 in the Proposed Plan as well as the 
new analysis in Chapter 3. 

WSR-1 5 

COMMENT: The Draft RMP is structured with 
the assumption that eligibility has already been 
determined. All alternatives make the assump- 
tion that 10 river segments are eligible. Chapter 
3 of the Draft RMP assumes that the eligibility 
determinations have been made. This is 
improper. There is no record of decision regard- 
ing these eligibility determinations, and there 
was never an opportunity to protest or appeal 
the eligibility determination if the decision is 
already made. 

RESPONSE: Findings of eligibility, through a 
field inventory process, had to be made for 
planning purposes in order to identify which 
segments would be analyzed in the Draft RMP 
for suitability. However, determinations of eligi- 
bility are not final until the RMP is final. Public 
comments on eligibility findings made in the 
Draft RMP were analyzed and have resulted in 
changes. There is an opportunity to protest the 
eligibility findings made in the Proposed Plan. 
Refer to Appendix 7 in this Proposed Plan for 
these eligibility findings. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.45 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



WSR-16 

COMMENT: BLM could easily implement land 
use criteria to protect the resource values on 
land they administer rather than propose river 
segments for designation. 

RESPONSE: In some cases BLM has considered 
the effects of other types of designations in pro- 
tecting values that make rivers eligible for wild 
and scenic river consideration. Refer to 
Appendix 8 for additional information. 

WSR-17 

COMMENT: The West Fork of Beaver Dam 
Wash does not meet eligibility or suitability 
requirements. As far as eligibility is concerned, 
the river from the narrows to Motoqua does not 
meet the requirements of free-flowing as a road 
goes up the river bottom and crosses the river 
over 20 times. There is a diversion on the pri- 
vate land above the narrows and a reservoir 
upstream in Nevada. There are no outstanding- 
ly remarkable values: the amount of recreation- 
al use is minimal, there is little left of a histori- 
cal nature, and on a regional basis there are 
numerous streams with riparian vegetation as 
good or better than this. As far as suitability is 
concerned, the opportunity for a reservoir devel- 
opment would be foreclosed and create poten- 
tially huge economic losses within the county if 
the segment is found suitable. 

RESPONSE: Neither the road nor the upstream 
water developments affect the free- flowing 
aspects of the river. The volume of flow is suffi- 
cient if it is enough to support any outstandingly 
remarkable values. (Refer to comment WSR-3a). 
BLM continues to believe that outstandingly 
remarkable values exist for this segment and 
that it is eligible. Refer to Appendix 7 for the 
rationale. The suitability assessment has been 
substantially modified based on public com- 
ment. Refer to Appendix 8. 



species. The old pioneer fort structure was 
never completed or used, and because it is a 
National Register property, it already receives 
sufficient protection under the Antiquity Act. 
The suitability assessment in the Draft RMP/EIS 
is inadequate. How can an 0.5 mile segment 
be managed? The foreclosure of the opportunity 
for a reservoir site was not addressed. 

RESPONSE: BLM continues to believe that out- 
standingly remarkable values exist for this seg- 
ment and that it is eligible. Refer to Appendix 7 
for reasons. The suitability assessment has been 
substantially modified based on public com- 
ment. Refer to Appendix 8. 

WSR-19 

COMMENT: The Deep Creek/Crystal Creek seg- 
ment does not meet eligibility or suitability 
requirements. The hydrologic, recreation, and 
fishery values are not outstandingly remarkable 
on a regional basis. Crystal Creek is similar to a 
number of canyons on the Kolob Terrace and 
Zion National Park. Deep Creek has scenic, 
geologic, and recreational values equal to Zion 
National Park, but not more remarkable. There 
is a road that crosses Deep Creek. Land owner- 
ship is 50 percent private and is isolated from 
other BLM-managed public lands, making it 
difficult to manage. Water rights could be 
affected. 

RESPONSE: BLM continues to believe that out- 
standingly remarkable values exist for this seg- 
ment and that it is eligible. Refer to Appendix 7 
for reasons. A narrow, steep, cliff-exposed, diffi- 
cult trail does exist across Deep Creek and 
would continue to be used under permit only. 
This does not preclude a "wild" designation. 
The suitability assessment has been substantially 
modified based on public comment. Refer to 
Appendix 8. 

WSR-20 



WSR-18 

COMMENT: Fort Pearce Wash does not meet 
eligibility or suitability requirements. As far as 
eligibility is concerned, there are no outstand- 
ingly remarkable values when considered on a 
regional basis. The spotted bat is not a listed 



COMMENT: The LaVerkin/Smith Creek segment 
does not meet eligibility or suitability require- 
ments. The scenic, recreational, riparian, and 
hydrologic values are not outstandingly remark- 
able when compared on a regional basis. The 
suitability analysis in the Draft RMP/EIS is inade- 
quate. It does not address the effects on water 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.46 



CHAPTER 5 • PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



rights. There is a proposed reservoir site on this 
stream, which would be foregone with designa- 
tion. Less than half of the miles of the stream 
are controlled by BLM. 

RESPONSE: BLM continues to believe that out- 
standingly remarkable values exist for this seg- 
ment and that it is eligible. Refer to Appendix 7 
for reasons. The suitability assessment has been 
substantially modified based on public com- 
ment. Refer to Appendix 8. 

WSR-21 

COMMENT: Moody Wash-Segment B does not 
meet eligibility or suitability requirements. 
Fisheries are not outstandingly remarkable. The 
Virgin spinedace is not a listed species. The 
largest number offish are in the upper main- 
stem of the Virgin River. The suitability analysis 
in the Draft RMP/EIS is inadequate. Existing 
water use and rights would be affected. The 
BLM cannot manage this small segment. 

RESPONSE: BLM continues to believe that out- 
standingly remarkable values exist for this seg- 
ment and that it is eligible. Refer to Appendix 7 
for reasons. The suitability assessment has been 
substantially modified based on public com- 
ment. Refer to Appendix 8. 

WSR-22 

COMMENT: The portion of the North Fork 
Virgin River that is on BLM- managed land is 
not eligible or suitable. Scenic and recreational 
values of the BLM segment are not outstanding- 
ly remarkable on a regional basis when com- 
pared to Zion National Park, Paria Canyon, or 
the Escalante Canyon. There is no way BLM 
can administer these isolated tracts as a wild 
and scenic river. Designation would affect 
water rights and the ability to develop them. 

RESPONSE: BLM continues to believe that out- 
standingly remarkable values exist for this seg- 
ment and that it is eligible. Refer to Appendix 7 
for reasons. The suitability assessment has been 
substantially modified based on public com- 
ment. Refer to Appendix 8. 

WSR-23 

COMMENT The Oak Creek/Kolob Creek seg- 
ment is not eligible or suitable. The scenic. 



recreational, and wildlife values are not out- 
standingly remarkable when compared with 
opportunities within Zion National Park, the 
Dixie Forest, Escalante Canyons, or the Paria 
River. This cannot be managed by BLM. Water 
development and water rights would be affected. 

RESPONSE: BLM's interdisciplinary team con- 
tinues to believe that outstandingly remarkable 
values exist for this segment and that it is eligi- 
ble. Refer to Appendix 7 for reasons. The suit- 
ability assessment has been substantially modi- 
fied based on public comment. Refer to 
Appendix 8. 

WSR-24 

COMMENT: Virgin River Segment B is not eligi- 
ble or suitable. Scenic, recreational, wildlife, 
fishery, and cultural values are not outstandingly 
remarkable on a regional basis. During low- 
water flow periods, the major water supply is 
the effluent from the St. George sewer plant. 
This segment provides the poorest habitat on the 
Virgin River for Virgin chub and Woundfin 
because of non-native fish. The Red Shiner is 
dominant. The segment is not free-flowing 
because the fish barrier above the gorge is a 
major structure. The BLM does not administer 
50 percent of this segment. Water rights and 
water development upstream would be affected. 

RESPONSE: BLM continues to believe that out- 
standingly remarkable values exist for this seg- 
ment and that it is eligible. The fish barrier does 
not affect the segment's free-flowing values 
because it does not constitute a major structure 
that significantly alters the river's character and 
there is enough flow to support outstandingly 
remarkable values. The water released from the 
St. George sewer plant has been treated to meet 
state standards. Refer to Appendix 7. The suit- 
ability assessment has been substantially modi- 
fied based on public comment. Refer to com- 
ments WSR-3 and WSR-1 1 , as well as to 
Appendix 8. 

WSR-25 

COMMENT: Virgin River Segment A is not eli- 
gible or suitable. The segment is not free-flow- 
ing due to four major diversions and major 
developments including a power plant, cement 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.47 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



pipe plant, and sewer plant. The scenic, recre- 
ational, wildlife, and fishery values are not out- 
standingly remarkable when compared on a 
regional basis (compared to Zion National Park, 
Dixie National Forest, Escalante Canyon, Paria 
River, etc.) This segment is not manageable. 
Designation would seriously hinder develop- 
ment and implementation of the Virgin River 
Management Plan, and would affect current 
water rights and the ability to develop them. 

RESPONSE: The existing flow is adequate if it is 
enough to support any outstandingly remarkable 
values. The existence of developments within 
the stream corridor affects the segment's tenta- 
tive classification rather than its eligibility. The 
segment is tentatively classified as recreational. 
BLM still believes that the segment has out- 
standingly remarkable values and finds the seg- 
ment to be eligible except for a 1-miie segment 
at the Quail Creek Diversion, which is deter- 
mined to be non-free-flowing. Refer to 
Appendix 7 for reasons. The suitability assess- 
ment has been substantially modified based on 
public comment. Refer to Appendix 8. 

WSR-26 

COMMENT: Santa Clara River Segment B is not 
eligible or suitable. There are two major diver- 
sions in this segment and two below the seg- 
ment. There is a road which parallels the stream 
and crosses it at least twice. The rock art panels 
are nice on a local basis but not outstandingly 
remarkable on a regional basis. They are 
already protected by the Antiquity Act. The seg- 
ment is not manageable by BLM. There is no 
public access to this segment except across pri- 
vate land. A designation could affect water 
rights and use of water both up and down- 
stream. 

RESPONSE: The diversions on this segment do 
not constitute major structures. BLM continues 
to believe that outstandingly remarkable values 
exist and that the segment is eligible. Refer to 
Appendix 7 regarding BLM's eligibility findings. 
The suitability assessment has been substantially 
modified based on public comment. Refer to 
Appendix 8. 

WSR-27 

COMMENT: The National Park Service supports 
designation of the following river segments: 
LaVerkin Creek/Smith Creek, North Fork Virgin 



River, and Oak Creek/Kolob Creek. Proposals 
for WSR status need to incorporate the terms of 
the proposed settlement of reserved water rights 
at Zion National Park. Additionally, the NPS 
would like BLM to reevaluate three additional 
river segments contiguous to the park. These 
are Beartrap, Goose, and North Creek. All are 
free-flowing and have outstanding values that 
are regionally significant to the Colorado 
Plateau: scenic, recreational, geologic, hydro- 
logic, and ecological attributes. In addition, 
both Goose Creek and Beartrap provide critical 
habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl, North 
Creek provides habitat for the Virgin spinedace, 
and all three attract visitors, enhanced by their 
proximity to Zion National Park. 

RESPONSE: North Fork Virgin River, Oak 
Creek/Kolob Creek, and the portion of LaVerkin 
Creek/Smith Creek contiguous to Zion National 
Park are determined suitable in the Proposed 
Plan. Beartrap and Goose Creek will be reevalu- 
ated during preparation of the general manage- 
ment plan for Zion National Park. BLM reviewed 
North Creek, but still finds the BLM-managed 
segment ineligible. Refer to Appendix 7. The 
Proposed Plan acknowledges the water rights 
agreement for Zion National Park. 

WSR-28 

COMMENT: Unless authorized by Congress, it 
is improper to consider federal reserve water 
rights in connection with wild and scenic rivers. 
Such discussion should be deleted from the 
document. If not deleted, the economic and 
social effects on privately held water rights 
should be completely analyzed. 

RESPONSE: Federal Reserve Water Rights have 
only been considered as an aspect of congres- 
sional designation. The effects of designation on 
privately held water rights have been addressed. 
See the Proposed Plan Impact Analysis, the 
Impacts on Socioeconomic Factors section, for 
additional information as well as the response to 
comment WSR-1 1 above. 

Category: Riparian Resources 

RIP-1 

COMMENT: Gould Wash is not a riparian area 
as shown in the Draft RMR It is dry a good 
share of the time. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.48 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



RESPONSE: Riparian inventories conducted 
throughout the Dixie Resource Area document- 
ed and mapped riparian areas in accordance 
with the vegetation type associated with the 
area. Map 3.8 in the Draft RMP depicts surface 
water on public lands and Map 3.10 shows 
areas which contain riparian vegetation. Even 
when surface flows are infrequent, riparian veg- 
etation can be supported by underground water 
stored within the channel. Portions of Gould 
Wash contain tamarisk, seepwillow, and salt 
grass vegetation which support the riparian clas- 
sification; over half of the wash does not sup- 
port a riparian classification, however. 

RIP-2 

COMMENT: How will BLM protect riparian 
areas from degradation as a result of grazing?. 

RESPONSE: Please see the Riparian and 
Grazing sections of the Proposed Plan. In addi- 
tion, Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health and 
Guidelines for Grazing Management have been 
incorporated into the Grazing section. 

RIP-3 

COMMENT: Draft RMP, Pg. 2.67. column 1, 
paragraph 5: BLM has no authority to protect 
riparian habitat on canals. This would be an 
infringement upon the right-of-way grant to the 
individual. 

RESPONSE: The Clean Water Act and Executive 
Order 1 1990 mandate the protection or mitiga- 
tion of man-made wetlands. The The U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers would maintain jurisdiction 
over those areas along canals that have tenable 
wetlands associated with them. 

Category: Range Management 

RAN-1 

COMMENT: The Gunlock Allotment grazing 
plan is working well and does not need an 
intensive grazing management plan. 

RESPONSE: Livestock grazing on the Gunlock 
Allotment, as well as recreation use and other 
factors, would be reviewed to determine if 
changes are needed to improve the riparian 



habitat. Both the Draft RMP and this Proposed 
Plan bring forth a recommended decision to 
make the Gunlock Allotment a priority allot- 
ment for riparian monitoring studies. 
Adjustment of grazing management is only one 
of many options that could be considered. See 
the amended language in this Proposed Plan. 

RAN-2 

COMMENT: BLM must consider the various 
public lands resources which are adversely 
affected by livestock grazing and weigh those 
factors. The Draft RMP only considers grazing 
limitations where there areT&E species. 

RESPONSE: The Draft RMP considered many 
other resources in relationship to livestock graz- 
ing. Proposed decisions that could limit or 
adjust grazing uses, in addition toT&E species, 
are listed under the Riparian, Wildlife, and 
Livestock Grazing Management sections in the 
Draft RMP under all alternatives. Livestock graz- 
ing management would be managed in accor- 
dance with Utah's Rangeland Standards and 
Guidelines (see Grazing section of the 
Proposed Plan). Additional information con- 
cerning livestock grazing and other grazing 
issues are incorporated throughout the Proposed 
Plan and in the Hot Desert Grazing EIS. 
Grazing management, as described in the 
Proposed Plan, would continue until monitor- 
ing, field observations, inventories, or other data 
indicates that a change is necessary. 

RAN-3 

COMMENT: All allotments except two are clas- 
sified as having "I" (Intensive Management) 
characteristics. This classification suggests that 
these allotments are presently in only fair to 
poor condition with a downward trend. (See 
definition in Appendix 4 of Draft RMP). This 
suggests that present management practices are 
inadequate and that the best way to improve 
these range areas would be to further reduce the 
allotments. 

RESPONSE: Of the 1 1 active allotments in 
the Dixie Resource Area, 23 are assigned the 
"Intensive Management" category ("I"). There are 
several criteria used to determine which catego- 
ry an allotment is assigned. Range condition is 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.49 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



only one of the criteria used. Many times an 
allotment is assigned an "I" category based on 
meeting several of the other criteria, even 
through the range condition may be good to 
excellent. In general, monitoring studies indi- 
cate that most of the "I" allotments are in fair to 
excellent condition except for small areas of 
high livestock concentration such as riparian 
areas or around livestock waters. However, 
these areas usually constitute only a small por- 
tion of the allotment. 



Land exchanges in support of the HCP area 
could result in needed fences on new bound- 
aries. In these cases, a Washington Counly 
Ordinance asserts that, where private land bor- 
ders public land, the private land owner would 
be responsible for fencing his/her private prop- 
erty if they do not want permitted livestock on 
their property. Because future land exchange 
boundaries are unknown at this time, costs of 
fencing potentially new boundaries cannot be 
ascertained. 



RAN-4 



RAN-6 



COMMENT: How many allotments remain as 
viable units after the desert tortoise HCP is 
implemented and the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC 
prescriptions are applied? 

RESPONSE: Portions of four allotments that are 
within the heart of the Washington County HCP 
Reserve would be closed due to the recommen- 
dations brought forth in the Incidental Take EIS 
Decision Record. Others could be closed 
where operators chose to relinquish their per- 
mits. At this time it is difficult to know how 
many allotments would remain viable following 
the land exchanges necessary to acquire private 
and state lands within the HCP area. Because 
land exchanges are most prevalent close to the 
more urbanized areas, it is assumed that live- 
stock operations near the St. George and the 
Hurricane areas would, over time, be acutely 
impacted. Refer to the Fish and Wildlife, 
Habitat Management, and Grazing Management 
sections in the Proposed Plan as well as the 
analysis for further information. The land 
exchange process continues to be slow and will 
take many years to complete. The current pro- 
posal for the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC should 
leave all livestock operations viable in this area. 
The operators would be impacted by active sea- 
son restrictions placed on tortoise habitat within 
the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC. 

RAN-5 

COMMENT: As a result of changes in livestock 
management due to the desert tortoise and other 
issues, who would be responsible for fencing 
where it is needed, and at what cost? 

RESPONSE: No fencing needs have been iden- 
tified as a result of the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC. 



COMMENT: What are the economic impacts, 
not just the price per AUM, but a total econom- 
ic analysis of desert tortoise protection on each 
individual permitted and the County as a 
whole? 

RESPONSE: This analysis would be outside the 
scope of the Proposed Plan. The FWS 
Incidental Take EIS, which is the authorizing 
document for the HCP, as well as the FWS 
Economic Analysis on Desert Tortoise Protection 
provides information on the socioeconomic 
impacts of this action. Refer to the Impacts on 
Socioeconomic Factors section under the 
Proposed Plan Impact Analysis for specific infor- 
mation related to the direct impacts of this 
Proposed Plan. 

Category: Wilderness 

WlLD-1 

COMMENT: BLM should not be closing large 
pieces of land for wilderness designation. 

RESPONSE: The Dixie Resource Management 
Plan simply acknowledges existing Wilderness 
Study Areas (WSAs); it does not establish new 
WSAs. The WSAs depicted in the Draft RMP as 
well as in the Proposed Plan were identified in 
1980 in response to Section 60.3 of the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). 
This was done through a public process inde- 
pendent of the Dixie Resource Management 
Plan. The Utah Statewide Wilderness 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was com- 
pleted in 1990 and this document contained an 
analysis of the effects of potential wilderness 
designation throughout Utah. In 1991, BLM 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.50 



CHAPTER 5 ' PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



provided statewide recommendations for desig- 
nating selected areas as part of ihe National 
Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Only 
Congress can make such designations. However, 
until Congress acts on this matter, BLM is 
required by FLPMA Section 603 to protect the 
wilderness characteristics within the WSAs in 
order to maintain the option for Congress to 
designate wilderness. BLM's interim 
Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands 
Under Wilderness Review (IMP) provides the 
direction on how this protection is to be 
achieved. The time for public comment on 
establishment of these WSAs is long past. By 
law, they must be protected under BLM's IMP 
until Congress acts to either include them in the 
NWPS or release them for nonwilderness uses. 

WILD-2 

COMMENT: The BLM failed to evaluate the 
need for further wilderness in its planning 
process in violation of Section 202 of FLPMA. 

RESPONSE: All public lands in the Dixie 
Resource Area were inventoried for wilderness 
potential by 1980 as a result of the FLPMA 
Section 603 mandate noted above. At the 
inception of the Dixie RMP in 1985, it was 
determined by the Dixie planning team that fur- 
ther wilderness inventory was not necessary 
within the RMP effort because the statewide 
wilderness process was still underway. BLM rec- 
ommendations were submitted in 1991 and 
have not yet been acted upon by the Congress. 

Section 202 of FLPMA provides the basic plan- 
ning authority for BLM land use planning and 
provides guidelines and limitations. Within 
these provisions, all resources on the public 
lands can be addressed as appropriate, but the 
section does not specifically require that every 
single resource be addressed in every RMP. 
Therefore, the lack of further wilderness studies 
within the RMP is not a violation of FLPMA 
Section 202. At the time the Draft RMP was 
released for public comment in October 1995, 
the planning team did not identify conditions 
pertaining to the public lands that warranted the 
need to consider additional wilderness study. 

WILD-3 

COMMENT: The management of H.R. 1500 
lands was ignored in the Draft RMP. 



RESPONSE: H.R. 1 500 refers to one of several 
statewide wilderness proposals introduced in 
Congress for public lands in Utah managed by 
BLM. None of these proposals has been enact- 
ed to date (as of April 1998). Areas proposed 
for wilderness in H.R. 1 500 are based on a citi- 
zen proposal which, in terms of BLM manage- 
ment, has no legal status at this time. These 
lands were not ignored in the Dixie RMP They 
are part of the planning area. Various alterna- 
tives for managing these lands were presented 
in the Draft RMP based on their resource char- 
acteristics and the array of potential uses. The 
Proposed Plan provides management prescrip- 
tions for these lands. However, H.R. 1500 lands 
have not been singled out for special treatment 
in the Plan merely due to the H.R. 1500 propos- 
al. BLM has no planning guidance for the man- 
agement of wilderness values outside of WSAs. 
However, BLM is careful to allow for a case-by- 
case review of any actions within H.R. 1 500 
areas. See the response to WlLD-2 regarding 
additional wilderness inventory. 

Category: Water 

WATER-1 

COMMENT: BLM failed to follow process by 
accepting water demands from local water dis- 
tricts, including dam sites and development, 
without looking at the broad public interest. 

RESPONSE: BLM is mandated to coordinate 
with state and local governments in planning 
endeavors through Section 202 of the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The 
State of Utah has completed a water plan for the 
Kanab CreekA/irgin River Basin in which they 
identified the majority of sites discussed in the 
Draft RMR In addition, the Washington County 
Water Conservancy District (WCWCD) has 
identified dam sites for their future needs on 
public land in Washington County. BLM's 
responsibility during planning is to identify 
those sites, determine conformance with the 
Proposed Plan where possible, and to consider 
those sites when analyzing other actions in the 
areas identified by the state or WCWCD for a 
proposed dam site. The Proposed Plan does 
not approve those sites for future dams; it mere- 
ly acknowledges that the state and WCWCD 
have completed local planning efforts and iden- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.51 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



tified potential sites for tineir future possible 
needs. Please see additional information in the 
Soil and Water Resources section of the 
Proposed Plan. 

WATER-2 



could consider a change in ownership if long- 
term management under a new owner would 
enhance riparian values to a greater extent than 
if held under BLM administration. Refer to the 
Lands and Riparian Resources sections of the 
Proposed Plan for more details. 



COMMENT: The Environmental Consequences 
discussion failed to explore the effects of reser- 
voir development at the level that each alterna- 
tive would allow. Guessing that only one or 
two reservoirs would be built and analyzing 
only the two ignores the impact of the possibili- 
ty of approving up to 1 1 sites. 

RESPONSE: Refer to pages 4.1, 4.23, and 4.41 
in the Draft RMP for a discussion of Reasonably 
Foreseeable Actions (RFA). Although the Draft 
displayed different levels of development for 
reservoir sites in Alternative B (1 1 sites) and 
Alterative C (6 sites), the RFA in Chapter 4 was 
specific for one site in Alternative C and two 
sites in Alternative B. Thus, the analysis under 
the RFA determines the threshold for dam sites 
on public lands. For example, only two dams 
considered within a pool of 1 1 sites would be 
deemed consistent with the plan under 
Alternative B. Only one dam site considered 
within a pool of 6 sites would be deemed con- 
sistent with the plan under Alternative C. In the 
Proposed Plan, two dams within a pool of six 
sites would be considered consistent with the 
Plan. If a third dam were proposed, a plan 
amendment would be required. 

WATER-3 

COMMENT: BLM should recognize the impor- 
tance of the Virgin River Corridor, including the 
100-year floodplain from LaVerkin to Zion 
National Park, and retain and manage these 
lands for the long-term benefit of the public. 

RESPONSE: The BLM does recognize the 
importance of these lands and has adjusted its 
land transfer recommendations accordingly. See 
the Lands map in the Proposed Plan for clarifi- 
cation. However, BLM is committed to working 
with local, state, other federal agencies, or inter- 
ested conservation groups to accomplish effec- 
tive management of riparian areas along this 
stretch of the Virgin River where the public 
lands are small, fragmented, and isolated. BLM 



WATER-4 

COMMENT The Draft RMP does not address 
the impacts on endangered fish from the Quail 
Creek Diversion, especially in light of the pro- 
posed Sand Hollow Reservoir. 

RESPONSE: The Environmental Assessment for 
the Quail Creek Diversion was completed and 
approved in 1985. This document analyzed the 
effects to the fish in the Virgin River. The Sand 
Hollow Land Exchange was exempted from the 
NEPA process through congressional legislation. 

WATER-5 

COMMENT: The Draft RMP does not analyze 
the effects of proposed water development pro- 
jects (11 wells, 113 reservoirs, 224 springs, and 
1 pond) on wetlands or springs. 

RESPONSE: BLM has filed claims on the above- 
listed waters to help meet the needs of livestock, 
wildlife, and recreation users. The majority of 
the springs have already been developed for 
those intended uses. The reservoirs, wells, and 
pond were developed for livestock and wildlife 
use. The information provided on these wells, 
reservoirs, springs, and pond was for back- 
ground data on the current existing affected 
environment. Any future developments would 
require additional, case-by-case NEPA analysis 
and would be in conformance with the proto- 
cols and decisions described in the Soil and 
Water Resources and Riparian Resources sec- 
tions of the Proposed Plan. Because water 
rights and water management are dynamic and 
continuously changing, it is imperative that 
other multiple-use planning decisions be com- 
patible with executive orders and federal/state 
water laws in order to protect critical resources. 

WATER-6 

COMMENT: There was no discussion of the 
state-listed waters under Section 303 (d) of the 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.52 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



Clean Water Act and no indication if the State 
Section 305 list was consulted. The analysis 
does not determine if there are impacted waters 
or how to avoid additional impacts to waters of 
the U.S. 

RESPONSE: BLM is committed to help solve the 
303(d) listings through numerous actions being 
undertaken in the Proposed Plan and through 
the implementation of Utah BLM's Standards for 
Rangeland Health. One of BLM's main objec- 
tives is to ensure compliance with state and fed- 
eral laws pertaining to water quality and pollu- 
tion prevention. The Soil and Water Resources 
section of the Proposed Plan has incorporated a 
myriad of decisions that would prevent impacts 
to waters of the U.S. BLM is fully aware of the 
303 (d) list and the state Section 305 list and 
has established a working protocol with the 
state to set up water sampling and monitoring 
stations to comply with this law. BLM continues 
to work with the Utah Division of Water 
Resources to provide input into the 305 (b) 
report. 

WATER-7 

COMMENT: The list of reservoir sites invento- 
ried by the state and WCWCD and provided to 
BLM for this planning effort were ignored in the 
Draft RMR 

RESPONSE: The Draft RMP recognized 1 1 sites 
that were identified by both the State and the 
WCWCD. See pgs. 3.11 and 3.12 as well as 
Map 3.8 in the Draft RMP Sites identified by 
the state were taken from the Utah State Water 
Plan - Kanab CreekA^irgin River Basin in which 
they identify nine sites for potential reservoirs 
on BLM land. Four sites are not carried forward 
for discussion due lo various factors. Of the 21 
sites identified by the WCWCD for potential 
reservoir sites, direct conflicts with critical 
resources narrowed that list to the sites in the 
Draft RMP All five of the state sites were also 
recommended by the WCWCD. Sec the 
response to WATER-15 for more detailed infor- 
mation as well as the Soil and Water Resources 
section of the Proposed Plan. 

WATER-8 

COMMENT: Reservoir sites should have been 
treated equally and fairly with ACECs and Wild 



and Scenic River values since they may directly 
impact and conflict with each other. 

RESPONSE: BLM does recognize the planning 
efforts put forth by the state and the WCWCD, 
and has incorporated this information in the 
Proposed Plan. However, no written proposals 
for reservoir sites are on record at this time 
except for the Sand Hollow Reservoir site (now 
in private ownership) and for the West Fork 
Beaver Dam Wash, which has been found 
inconsistent with the Proposed Plan. Future 
proposals would be reviewed on a case-by-case 
basis and would be considered in light of the 
highest and best use of the land and current 
land use prescriptions. The Proposed Plan con- 
tains an expanded discussion of these issues in 
the section on Soil and Water Resources. 

WATER-9 

COMMENT: Clarify that BLM's instream flow 
studies are for resource information and BLM 
would not attempt to exert federal reserved or 
other instream flow requirements without specif- 
ic federal legislation or a cooperatively devel- 
oped and approved plan or program by local, 
state, or federal agencies. Flows must be 
obtained in accordance with state law and rec- 
ognize existing approved private water rights. 

RESPONSE: In accordance with Utah state law, 
BLM fully understands it cannot hold an 
instream flow for a water right and that the Utah 
Division of Wildlife Resources and the Division 
of Parks and Recreation are the only two entities 
that can hold such a water right. This clarifica- 
tion has been made in the Soil and Water 
Resources section of the Proposed Plan along 
with a commitment to work with state and local 
agencies and water users to develop joint strate- 
gies for determining and maintaining instream 
flows needed for critical resources. 

WATER-10 

COMMENT On pg. 2.8, column 1; Map 3.10 
does not show potential dam sites as stated. 

RESPONSE: This change has been made on the 
Errata Sheet and now references Map 3.8 in 
Chapter 3. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.53 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



WATER-1 1 

COMMENT: The Draft RMP states that 1 1 
reservoir sites would be considered, but how 
will these potential reservoir sites be protected? 

RESPONSE: The Draft RMP did not explain 
how the reservoir sites were to be protected; 
however, the Proposed Plan has clarified this 
concern and has provided for a level of scrutiny 
on the six proposed sites prior to permitting any 
future actions in these areas (see Soil and Water 
Resources section of Proposed Plan). Of the 1 1 
sites brought forth in Alternative B of the Draft 
RMP, only 6 have been carried forth into the 
Proposed Plan due to various factors depicted in 
the response to WATER-1 5. Although not con- 
sistent with the Proposed Plan, the majority of 
the rejected sites would be protected in light of 
their locality in or near sensitive areas including 
ACECs, riparian areas. Special Status species 
habitat. Wild and Scenic River eligibility, and 
important recreational or other sensitive values. 

WATER-1 2 

COMMENT: Draft RMP Page 2.25: What does 
BLM intend to do in the way of developing 
water-based recreation in connection with the 
proposed reservoirs? 

RESPONSE: The statement referred to merely 
allows for water-based recreation on the pro- 
posed reservoir sites if approved and permitted, 
and if the proponent chooses to make them 
recreational reservoirs. BLM would enter into 
an agreement with the applicant to allow for the 
development of recreational water-based activi- 
ties; however, BLM would not be the developer 
or the manager of these areas. BLM would 
probably enter into an agreement, much like the 
one with the WCWCD and the State of Utah at 
Quail Creek Reservoir, for the development of 
water-based recreation under the management 
of the state or local agency. 

WATER-1 3 

COMMENT: What is the effect of designating 
the West Fork Beaver Dam Wash an antidegra- 
dation stream by the state? 

RESPONSE: The effect of supporting a state des- 
ignation of an antidegradation stream segment 



along the West Fork Beaver Dam Wash would 
be to help protect the pristine water quality 
associated with the stream. Specific mitigation 
would be required by all users in the area, 
including the mining industry, so as to not 
degrade the clear, clean water of the Beaver 
Dam Wash in accordance with the standards 
set in R31 7.2-3. See the Soil and Water 
Resources section of the Proposed Plan for 
further information. 

WATER-1 4 

COMMENT: In reference to the Draft RMP 
Water section in Chapter 3, the most current 
study of water needs completed by Boyle 
Engineering for the Washington County Water 
Conservancy for the year 2010 is 59,059 acre 
feet for municipal and industrial use and 
123,768 acre feet for agricultural use for a total 
of 1 82,827 acre feet. For the year 2020, it is 
estimated as being 89,325 acre feet for munici- 
pal and industrial use and 1 42,363 acre feet for 
agricultural use for a total of 231,688 acre feet. 

RESPONSE: This new information has been 
added to our Errata Sheet. FHowever, BLM will 
continue to refer to state and Five-County 
Association of Government predictions as well. 

WATER-1 5 

COMMENT: What was the criteria for screen- 
ing other potential dam sites identified by the 
WCWCD and the State of Utah Division of 
Water Resources? When and by whom was the 
Fort Pearce site found unsuitable as a dam site? 

RESPONSE: The Utah Division of Water 
Resources completed a study entitled 
Preliminary Analysis of Potential Damsites in the 
Virgin River Basin in January 1992, which iden- 
tified up to 98 potential reservoir sites in the 
Virgin River Basin. Through a series of addition- 
al evaluations, the Division of Water Resources 
reduced the list to the "best 16 potential dam- 
sites" in a capacity of over 3,000 acre feet. Of 
the 16 damsites found to have the best potential 
for water storage of over 3,000 acre feet, only 6 
were located on public land within the Dixie 
Resource Area. These sites were: LaVerkin 
Creek (two alignments), Warner Valley, Lower 
Santa Clara Creek, Upper Beaver Dam Wash, 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.54 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



Fort Pearce, and North Creek. The Division of 
Water Resources later reevaluated sites that 
could hold less than 3,000 acre feet, and deter- 
mined that 16 additional sites had good poten- 
tial for water storage. Of these, only two were 
on public land within the resource area. They 
were Dry Wash (south of Ivins) and Tobin Wash. 
Of all eight potential sites identified by the 
Division of Water Resources on public land 
within the resource area, BLM carried forth five 
of the sites into the Draft RMP. They were: La 
Verkin Creek (two alignments), Warner Valley, 
Lower Santa Clara Creek, and the Upper Beaver 
Dam Wash. 

The WCWCD identified additional potential 
reservoir sites in two letters to BLM on 
December 1 2, 1 992, and May 24, 1 993. Of 
the 14 additional sites identified by the 
WCWCD, the Draft RMP carried 3 of the sites 
forward (Dry Creek, Anderson Junction, Sand 
Hollow), as well as 2 additional later requests 



(Grapevine Wash, Leeds Creek). Many of these 
sites had been identified by the Division of 
Water Resources in their earlier studies, but 
eliminated from further investigation due to vari- 
ous reasons. Inadvertently, two other sites not 
located on BLM lands were also brought for- 
ward into the Draft RMP. These were the Santa 
Clara Shem site located within the Shivwits 
Indian Reservation and the proposed enlarge- 
ment of Gunlock Reservoir which is on state 
lands. The rest of the sites not considered in the 
Draft RMP are listed in the table below with 
applicable rationale. In total, the Draft RMP 
considered 12 potential reservoir sites proposed 
by either the State Division of Water Resources 
or the WCWCD (or both) within the array of 
alternatives. See the Draft RMP, pages 3.10 - 
3.12 for reference to these sites. 

Table 5.2 portrays state and WCWCD proposed 
reservoir sites that were not considered in the 
Draft RMP and/or the Proposed Plan and the 



TABLE 5-2 • Reservoir sites not considered or not carried forward into the Dixie RMP. 



STATE PROPOSED 
RESERVOIR SITES 



CONFLICTS WITH PUBLIC LAND RESOURCES OR OTHER ISSUES 



North Creek- lower site 



Fort Pearce Wash 



Dry Wash 

(42 S. 1 7 W. Sec. 1 ) 



Eliminated from further consideration by BLM due to potential problems with oil well 
contamination and potential spincdacc habitat. In addition, the March 1995 Purpose 
and Need Study completed by the Washington County Water Conservancy District 
(WCWCD) identified this site as no longer meeting their needs and abandoned further 
evaluation due to potential expense of capping the oil wells. 

Eliminated from further consideration by BLM due to conflicts with the Fort Pearce 
National Register Historic Site, as well as riparian and wildlife resources. In addition, 
the March 1 99.5 Purpose and Need Study completed by the WCWCD rejected this site 
due to cost considerations. 

Currently being processed for state selection to the Utah State Institutional Trust 
Lands Administration. 



Tobin Wash 



WCWCD PROPOSED 
RESERVOIR SITES 



Not enough information was provided to carry this site forward - additional evaluations 
are needed by the Division of Water Resources. 

CONFLICTS WITH PUBLIC LAND RESOURCES OR OTHER ISSUES 



Shunes Canyon 



North Creek - upper site 



Grafton 



Eliminated from further consideration by BLM due to conflicts wilh Canaan Mountain 
WSA, spinedace populations, and potential Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. 

Eliminated from further consideration by BLM due to conflicts with BLM Riparian 
Demonstration Area and existing spinedace populations. 

Eliminated from further consideration by BLM due to conflicts with river-related resource 
management including: scenic and historical values, and riparian and wildlife resources 
(including spinedace and potential Southwestern willow flycatcher). 



Virgin 


City 






Site 


is located on private 


and and is operational 


as the Quail Cree 


k Diversion. 


Ash Creek (Dry Wash) 




Eliminated through Division of Water Resources 


evaluation 


due to 








DIXIE 


RESOURCE 


AREA 


PROPOSED 


RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 


PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 


IMPACT 


STATEMENT 



5.55 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



TABLE 5-2 (continued) • Reservoir sites not considered or not carried forward into the Dixie RMP. 



WCWCD PROPOSED 
RESERVOIR SITES (CONTINUED) 



CONFLICTS WITH PUBLIC LAND RESOURCES OR OTHER ISSUES 



Ash Creek (Dry Wash) 



Eliminated through Division of Water Resources evaluation due to major 
geological problems. 



Quail-Ash Creek 



Not enough information provided to determine location of the site. 



Grassy 



Land has been exchanged and is no longer under federal ownershifj. 



City Creek 



Land not under federal ownership; also would conflict with Washington County HCP 
Reserve management objectives. 



Dry Wash 
(Graveyard Wash) 



Eliminated from further consideration by BLM due to conflicts with potential ACEC 
values associated with riparian, riverine, wildlife, and cultural resources. Also conflicts 
with a potential recreational/educational reserve being coordinated with 
local communities. 



Bloomington 



Eliminaled from further consideration by BLM due to conflicts with Virgin River 
management objectives, potential ACEC values associated with threatened and 
endangered species, riverine, riparian, and wildlife resources. Poses potential 
migration barrier forT&E and sensitive native fish species. State Division of Water 
Resources identified potential geological problems with this site. 



Pah Tempe Springs 
Collection and Transmission 



Collection site not under federal ownership. If transmission line bisects public lands, 
future NEPA documentation is required. 



RESERVOIR SITES IDENTIFIED IN 

1995 DRAFT RMP AND NOT 

BROUGHT FORTH INTO 

PROPOSED PLAN 



CONFLICTS WITH PUBLIC LAND RESOURCES OR OTHER ISSUES 



West Fork Beaver Dam Wash 



Eliminated from further consideration by BLM due to conflicts with proposed ACEC 
values associated with riparian, hydrologic, and wildlife resources including spinedace 
and potential Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. 



Lower Santa Clara 



Eliminated from further consideration by BLM due to conflicts with potential ACEC 
values associated with riparian, riverine, wildlife (spinedace and migratory and 
nongame bird species habitat), and cultural resources. Also conflicts with a potential 
recreational/educational reserve being coordinated with local communities. 



Sand Hollow 



Land was exchanged to the Washington County Water Conservancy for potential 
reservoir development to facilitate Zion National Park management and the 
HCP Reserve. 



La Verkin Creek - upper site 



Eliminated from further consideration by BLM due to conflicts with riparian and 
wildlife resources, as well as conflicts with the Wild and Scenic River 
suitability determination. 



Santa Clara - Shcm Silo 



Site is within the Shivwits Indian Reservation and not on public land. Development 
would encounter conflicts with spinedace habitat and other river-related resources. 



Enlargement of Gunlock 
Reservoir 



Site is under state land jurisdiction and not on public land. 
Development would encounter conflicts with spinedace habitat. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.56 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



reasons that these sites were deleted from fur- 
ther consideration. 

The Proposed Plan brought forth six of those 
potential sites that did not appear to have criti- 
cal conflicts with the management objectives. 
Identification of these sites in the Plan does not 
approve these sites for reservoir projects. It 
merely identifies the sites as having potential to 
hold water storage, and would require extensive 
NEPA compliance if an application is received 
to construct such sites. 

WATER-16 

COMMENT: The Draft RMP does not provide 
for development of valid nonperfected water 
rights in WSAs where such development would 
be consistent with applicable laws. 

RESPONSE: WSAs are designated and managed 
as required under Sections 603 and 202 of 
FLPMA. Only Congress can designate WSAs or 
wilderness or release them for uses other than 
wilderness. The Draft RMP does not alter the 
requirement for management of WSAs as pro- 
vided for in BLM Handbook H 8550-1 . 

WATER-17 

COMMENT: Why were only 6 of the 1 1 reser- 
voir sites selected in Alternative C? How were 
these selections made? 

RESPONSE: In Alternative 8, where 1 1 sites 
were identified for potential reservoir develop- 
ment, the proposed decisions did not include 
potential ACEC designations as in Alternative C. 
In addition, under Alternative B, all potentially 
eligible wild and scenic rivers were deemed 
unsuitable and therefore lost eligibility status. 
However, in Alternative C, the majority of rivers 
where reservoirs were proposed were found 
potentially eligible and/or suitable for further 
consideration by Congress and also fell within 
proposed ACECs. Potential reservoir sites not 
identified in Alternative C are La Verkin Creek 
due to Wild and Scenic River suitability; Lower 
Santa Clara due to conflicts with ACEC objec- 
tives and cultural resources, riparian resources, 
and T&E or sensitive species; West Fork Beaver 
Dam Wash due to conflicts with spinedace 
habitat restoration, potential Southwestern wil- 



low flycatcher habitat, and ACEC objectives; 
enlargement of Gunlock Reservoir because it 
would be on state-owned lands and would also 
have conflicts with spinedace habitat; the Shem 
site because it would be on lands within the 
Shivwits Indian Reservation and would also 
have conflicts with spinedace habitat and other 
river-related resources. See the response to 
WATER-15 for additional information. 

WATER-18 

COMMENT: What was the source for the 
214,804 acre feet average flow of the Virgin 
River at the Bloomington Caging Station on page 
3.10 of the Draft RMP? The USGS in their 1994 
Water Resource Data for Utah showed the annu- 
al flow from 1 978-1 994 to be 1 78,000 acre feet. 
The State's Kanab CreekA/irgin River Basin study 
in August 1993 showed an annual flow of 
185,691 acre feet for the 1978-1 990 period. The 
average annual flow of the 1 941 -1 990 period 
was estimated to be 1 38,51 8 acre feet. 

RESPONSE: The source for the 21 4,804 acre 
feet average flow was obtained from 
Bloomington Gaging Station studies; however, 
the source is currently unknown. The new 
information provided above has been added to 
the Errata Sheet. 

WATER-19 

COMMENT Draft RMP, Page 3.12: The state 
feels that the 1 55,000 acre feet number as an 
estimate of total annual groundwater recharge is 
not well defined. It should be qualified that the 
estimate of annual groundwater recharge may 
change with ongoing studies by the USGS and 
Utah Division of Water Rights. 

RESPONSE: This new information has been 
added to our Errata Sheet. 

WATER-20 

COMMENT: BLM should include the use des- 
ignations for surface water within the resource 
area as outlined in Standards of Quality for 
Waters of the State Administrative Code-31 7-2. 

RESPONSE: The use designations are an impor- 
tant source of information that were overlooked 
in the Draft RMP. However, the Draft RMP did 
state that the decisions in the RMP would 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL E N V ] RO N M E N T A L IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.57 



C H A P T E R 5 ' PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EiS AND RESPONSES 



adhere to applicable state laws and therefore, 
R-317.2 is incorporated by reference. The Soil 
and Water Resources section of the Proposed 
Plan has provided additional information on 
how BLM would adhere to and work with the 
Division of Water Resources to uphold and 
maintain the standards set by the State of Utah 
in R-317.2. 

WATER-21 

COMMENT: The Draft RMP did not reference 
the current MOU with the Utah Departments of 
Environmental Quality and Agriculture to coor- 
dinate water pollution control activities. 

RESPONSE: The revised Soil and Water 
Resources section of the Proposed Plan refer- 
ences this MOU and provides specific actions 
where BLM would work with the state to coor- 
dinate planning activities for the conservation of 
public land waters and to improve, maintain, 
and protect the quality of such for beneficial 
uses, as well as, prevent, abate, and control new 
or existing pollution problems within the 
County. 



bility of the municipal water company to protect 
the watershed for the municipal water source. 
Protection is accomplished though state policies 
outlined in R309-106-5, which include formu- 
lating a Memorandum of Understanding with 
the land holders that could potentially impact 
that water source. Lands along the Virgin River 
upstream from the diversion dam are primarily 
under private ownership. In order to protect a 
municipal watershed, the WCWCD would need 
to establish a boundary for the watershed, and if 
necessary, work with BLM to complete a land 
use plan amendment to formulate more protec- 
tive, stringent decisions for public lands within 
that watershed. These decisions could include 
closure of affected lands to mineral materials 
sales, restricting fluid mineral development, 
grazing constraints, or other applicable deci- 
sions to protect the watershed. This Proposed 
Plan offers decisions along the public land por- 
tions of the Virgin River within the riparian and 
floodplain zones that would protect and 
enhance those specific resources. 

Category: Air 



WATER-22 

COMMENT: Under the Soil and Water sections 
of the Draft RMP, best management practices 
(BMPs) were not discussed for sediment control. 
Why? 

RESPONSE: BLM tries to implement BMPs 
through mitigation requirements on a case- by- 
case basis; however, the Proposed Plan has 
incorporated this terminology for future use. 
BMPs are an important criteria in our manage- 
ment standards. Refer to the Soil and Water 
Resources section of the Proposed Plan. 

WATER - 23 

COMMENT: Since the Virgin River is used for 
municipal water purposes, the watershed of the 
Virgin River above the WCWCD diversion dam 
near Virgin should be considered a municipal 
watershed as well. 

RESPONSE: BLM does not designate municipal 
watersheds through its planning process. Under 
state regulations R309-113 (Drinking Water 
Source Protection Procedures), it is the responsi- 



COMMENT: The Draft RMP gave no considera- 
tion to smog and haze impacts from community 
growth and visitation. 

RESPONSE: There are no decisions in the 
Proposed Plan that would permanently degrade 
air quality in Washington County to the extent 
that it would be in violation of state law. If 
actions conform with state law, and ultimately 
with the Clean Air Act under EPA, NEPA does 
not require analysis of such actions on air quali- 
ty as it would not be an issue of concern. BLM 
does recognize that land exchange decisions in 
the Proposed Plan could increase development 
in the county, thereby increasing smog and 
haze; however, development not within state air 
quality standards would need to be permitted by 
the state. In addition, actions that BLM may 
take on future wildfire and prescribed burns 
could temporarily decrease air quality. See new 
information in the Air Quality section in Chapter 
2 of the Proposed Plan. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.58 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



Category: Recreation 

REC-1 

COMMENT: Explain the recreation opportunity 
spectrum (ROS) process and what it is used for. 
Why was the inventory only limited to special 
recreation managements areas (SRMAs)? 

RESPONSE: The ROS process is overviewed in 
the Draft RMP in Chapter 3, page 3.28, and in 
Appendix 10. The map depicting these areas is 
Map 3.14. This mechanism is only an inventory 
used as a management tool for recreational 
planning during this RMP process. It is not a 
plan decision. 

The ROS inventory was limited to SRMAs due to 
a management decision made during the early 
planning phases of the Draft RMR It was to be 
used to help determine recreational opportuni- 
ties for those specific areas known to have a 
higher recreational use. The extensive recre- 
ation management areas (ERMAs) did not 
receive the inventory status because they were 
not considered intensive recreation areas, even 
though casual use does occur. 

REC-1 a 

COMMENT: The area between SRI 8 and Red 
Mountain WSA should be changed to a 
Primitive ROS class and be closed to OHVs to 
protect Dammeron Valley residents. 

RESPONSE: The area between SR-1 8 and Red 
Mountain WSA was inventoried as a Roaded 
Natural Area during the ROS process due to a 
number of factors. The area has an existing 
powerline and access road going through it at 
the base of the Red Mountain WSA. In addi- 
tion, a water pipeline and holding tank, as well 
as access to those areas, is currently in place. A 
large portion of the area is being considered for 
a proposed utility corridor serving the needs of 
Dammeron Valley to the Sand Cove power 
plant. The area is open for greenwood fuel 
sales, thus requiring open access. For these rea- 
sons, the area does not conform to a primitive 
classification. This comment brought to BLM's 
attention an inconsistency on Map 2C.10. This 
area should not have reflected an OHV closure 
from SRI 8 to the WSA Boundary. It should 
have depicted the area as open for use on exist- 



ing roads and trails and this change has been 
incorporated into the Errata Sheet. 

BLM is not in a position to resolve all of the 
problems that interface between the developed 
and nondeveloped areas throughout the County. 
Community interface problems will continue to 
amplify as communities expand and more and 
more people demand recreational space. Those 
public lands that lie adjacent to developed pri- 
vate lands can be controlled to the extent 
allowed under federal law, through city and 
county ordinances. BLM would be happy to 
work with city or county officials to coordinate 
respective land use plans to help resolve con- 
flicts where possible. 

REC-1 b 

COMMENT The Red Cliffs SRMA should not 
be assigned a Rural ROS class. It is inside Zone 
4 of the Desert Tortoise Reserve and should be 
assigned a Primitive classification. 

RESPONSE: See the responses to the last two 
questions. The area is riddled with roads and 
trails, and the ROS inventory process displays 
this fact. Inventory findings should not be 
altered to a different class because it is within 
the HCP. Zone 4 of the HCP would be open 
for use on designated roads and trails as is 
allowed for in the FWS Incidental Take EIS. 
Refer to the OHV Management section of the 
Proposed Plan for further information. 

REC-1 c 

COMMENT The Deep Creek SRMA should not 
be depicted under a Semi- Primitive Motorized 
ROS class as it will dramatically increase use 
and impacts to these remote areas and to the 
Zion National Park riparian areas of Deep 
Creek, Crystal Creek, North Fork, and Kolob 
Creek. 

RESPONSE: See responses to REC-1 and REC- 
1a. The ROS inventory does not determine 
OHV categories. The area above Zion would be 
open for OHV use on either existing or desig- 
nated roads and trails. It is currently open for 
use throughout that area, and would therefore 
be more restrictive when the RMP is completed. 
See the OHV Management section of the 
Proposed Plan for further information. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATjMENT 



5.59 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



REC-2 

COMMENT: In the Draft RMP, Alternative C, 
OHV section: Why are only two OHV competi- 
tive events of no more than 300 people allowed 
per year? 

RESPONSE: The intent of this proposed deci- 
sion was to limit impacts from large OHV 
events within the resource area. In addition, the 
limited staff and budgeting of the BLM office 
administering these permits currently does not 
provide for adequate monitoring of such events 
on a larger scale. The specific limit of two 
events has been dropped in the Proposed Plan 
in favor of more general provisions that allow 
flexibility. See changes in the Proposed Plan 
under the OHV Management section. 

REC-3 

COMMENT: Information concerning recreation 
in Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP is very generic. 
Future demand estimates for dispersed recre- 
ation is lacking. New, more timely data with 
trends and rationale associated with actions is 
needed as recreation uses and demands change. 

RESPONSE: The Recreation and Off-Highway 
Vehicle Management sections of the Proposed 
Plan have brought forth more updated informa- 
tion provided by the Utah SCORP (1992) and 
the State Division of Parks and Recreation 
through the OHV Advisory Council. See these 
two sections in the Proposed Plan for additional 
information. 



Orders 1 1 644 and 1 1 989 provide the authority 
to BLM to define zones of use by off-road vehi- 
cles on public lands and to allow for special 
protection of public lands when it is determined 
that use of off-road vehicles will cause or is 
causing considerable adverse effects on the soil, 
vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and cultur- 
al or historic resources. Planning for OHV use 
in the resource area requires separate decisions 
and maps than from those generated through 
the recreation planning process. Considerable 
off-road travel is also attributed to nonrecreation 
use and must be addressed in the Proposed 
Plan. Refer to the Proposed Plan Recreation and 
OHV Management sections for further details. 

REC-5 

COMMENT: BLM should take an active role in 
managing recreation through physical develop- 
ment and information dissemination. This 
should be discussed through language for part- 
nership building and creative cooperation to 
better meet the needs of recreationists. 

RESPONSE: The BLM in Washington County is 
not in a position to meet future recreational 
demands due to internal budgetary and person- 
nel constraints. BLM will have to rely on future 
partnerships and cooperative management 
agreements with the state, towns, user groups, 
private entities, and conservation groups to help 
promote, manage, and expand the recreational 
opportunities in the area. See the Proposed 
Plan Recreation and OHV Management sections 
for further information. 



REC-4 

COMMENT: OHV use is a form of recreation 
and should not be treated separately. This 
unequal treatment is especially evident in SRMA 
prescriptions. 

RESPONSE: The BLM recognizes that OHV use 
is a form of recreation; however, the OHV 
Management section still remains a separate 
section in the Proposed Plan. Bureau regula- 
tions establish criteria for designating public 
lands as open, limited, or closed to the use of 
off-road vehicles and for establishing controls 
governing the use and operation of off-road 
vehicles in such areas. In addition. Executive 



Category: T&E Species 

COMMENT: Why were the endangered relict 
leopard frog and the Bonneville cutthroat trout 
totally excluded from analysis decisions? 

RESPONSE: These species do not naturally 
occur on the public lands administered by the 
Dixie Resource Area. 

T&E-2 

COMMENT: Recent changes published in a 
new Notice of Review in the February 28, 1996, 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.60 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



Federal Register have rendered parts of 
Appendix 3 in the Draft RMP obsolete. The 
Draft RMP's list of 30 plant and animal species 
is now reduced to 3 species. The BLM Utah 
State Office is compiling a formal list of sensi- 
tive species for public lands in Utah which 
includes the majority of the old candidate 
species. This should be added as a new appen- 
dix in the Proposed Plan. 

RESPONSE: Refer to Appendix 4 in the 
Proposed Plan which contains the updated 
species lists. Realize, however, that most of the 
sensitive species have not been inventoried for 
habitat needs, distribution, or location. 
Although these species are listed as sensitive 
species in Utah, they are not federally listed, 
and therefore do not hold the same legal 
requirements for protection. BLM will work 
with state and local agencies and conservation 
groups to provide adequate protection to these 
species as they are inventoried and habitat 
needs are realized. 

T&E-3 

COMMENT: The Proposed Plan should include 
a reference to a policy written in BLM Manual 
section 6840.06. D concerning additional listing 
and protection of species of concern not listed 
by the KWS. 

RESPONSE: Manual 6840.06. D refers to sensi- 
tive species and states, "State Directors, usually 
in cooperation with State wildlife agencies, may 
designate sensitive species. By definition, the 
sensitive species designation includes species 
that could easily become endangered or extinct 
in a State. Therefore, if sensitive species are 
designated by a State Director, the protection 
provided by the policy for candidate species 
shall be used as the minimum level of protec- 
tion." In response to the policy identified in 
BLM Manual 6840.06. D, Utah BLM has issued 
two Instruction Memoranda containing state 
sensitive plant and animal lists (See Appendix 4 
of the Proposed Plan). The animal list is the 
same one that was developed by the Utah 
Division of Wildlife Resources and released in 
March 1997. The plant species list is the result 
of input and review by several botanists in the 
state. Both of these lists are dynamic and sub- 
ject to change as new information becomes 
available. 



T&E-4 

COMMENT: Draft RMP, Chapter 1, page 1.6: 
This section states that the Plan "will consider 
wildlife habitat management opportunities that 
would maintain, improve, and expand priority 
species and their habitat." How will priority 
species be expanded? 

RESPONSE: In most instances, the words 
improve and/or expand are interchangeable in 
context. Several actions in the Proposed Plan 
provide for habitat expansion opportunities. 
Land acquisitions within the HCP and riparian 
areas would allow for expansion of habitat for 
the desert tortoise and special status fish species 
by providing protective measures under BLM 
planning authority. Protective measures within 
riparian areas such as OHV limitations, fluid 
mineral Category 3 classifications, and proposed 
riparian enhancement projects would help pro- 
tect the Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat 
and expand protected nesting habitat areas 
needed for recovery and delisting. Critical mule 
deer winter range could be manipulated through 
prescribed burns or other methods to allow for 
expanded feeding opportunities. Working with 
partners from local, state, and federal agencies, 
as well as conservation groups, to protect and 
enhdnce riparian areas and lloodplains through- 
out the Virgin River sub-basin should improve 
and expand priority species numbers and use 
within the Virgin River and major tributaries. 
These are but a few of the many examples of 
decisions in the Proposed Plan that could 
expand priority species and their habitat. 

T&E-5 

COMMENT: Management of sensitive species 
should be coordinated with local government 
agencies, private land and water owners, and 
federal land users. 

RESPONSE: All wildlife actions would be coor- 
dinated with the Utah Division of Wildlife 
Resources and other affected parties or land 
users. Coordination is also mandated through 
the National Environmental Policy Act process 
and is an open process for public participation. 
Development of conservation plans and strate- 
gies also provides opportunities for public 
involvement. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.61 



CHAPTER 5 " PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



T&E-6a 

COMMENT: What actions would BLM continue 
or coordinate in an effort to protect and 
enhance T&E fish habitat? 

RESPONSE: The BLM would continue to imple- 
ment the 1995 Spinedace Conservation 
Agreement and the 1 995 Recovery Plan for the 
Virgin River Fishes. Specific actions that would 
help protect and enhance T&E fish habitat can 
be found throughout the Resource sections of 
the Proposed Plan. 

T&E-6b 

COMMENT: Why would BLM acquire nonde- 
velopment easements on private and state lands 
between Quail Creek Reservoir to the 
Washington Field Diversion and acquire land 
between the LaVerkin Power Plant and Quail 
Creek Reservoir? What authority would be 
used to acquire the easements and the lands. 
What would be the cost? What would be the 
effects? What would this do for the fish that is 
not being done now? How would it change 
current management? Does this proposal have 
public support? 

RESPONSE: Nondevelopment easements 
between Quail Creek Reservoir and the 
Washington Fields Diversion were considered in 
Alternative D of the Draft RMP in concert with 
its emphasis on preserving biological systems 
and scenic values. Such easements would be 
designed to minimize development in the flood- 
plain to protect floodplain values and habitats 
for endangered and candidate fish species. 
Costs were not evaluated in the Draft RMP. The 
provision is not carried forward into the 
Proposed Plan because BLM believes that such 
easements are best acquired by local or state 
agencies, or organizations along that stretch of 
the Virgin River. Land acquisitions along the 
Virgin River between the LaVerkin Power Plant 
and the Quail Creek Reservoir are carried for- 
ward into the Proposed Plan so as to meet 
BLM's commitments under the Washington 
County Habitat Conservation Plan to acquire 
non-federal lands within the Reserve. 
Acquisitions would take place with landowner 
consent under the Federal Land Policy and 



Management Act (FLPMA) and Land and Water 
Conservation Fund authorities. 

T&E-7 

COMMENT: Where and what is important nest- 
ing habitat for the Southwestern willow flycatch- 
er? How would it be managed and what would 
be the effects on other activities such as water 
management and conservation, use for right of 
ways, grazing, and wildlife and threatened and 
endangered species. 

RESPONSE: Critical nesting habitat has not 
been determined by the FWS in Utah; however, 
important nesting habitat consists of dense ripar- 
ian old growth that is usually a few hundred feet 
wide. Vegetation could include tamarisk, coy- 
ote willow, Gooding willow, and Fremont Cot- 
tonwood communities. Impacts to other activi- 
ties would be considered on a case-by-case 
basis through Section 7 consultation with the 
FWS. Specific management actions for the 
Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat are dis- 
cussed in the Proposed Plan under special status 
species. 

T&E-8 

COMMENT: Alternative D in the Draft RMP 
indicates Sand Mountain would be closed to 
OHV use to protect the spotted Warner Valley 
dunes June beetle. Why would BLM close an 
area to protect the June beetle when it is not 
known if they even exist there and what their 
habitat requirements are? 

RESPONSE: When the Draft RMP was being 
written from 1985 to 1995, studies were being 
conducted on the sand dunes in Warner Valley 
to determine if the beetle was present and/or 
threatened or endangered. Because the objec- 
tive of Alternative D was to place an emphasis 
on preserving biological systems, this alternative 
took a proactive approach to prevent listing of 
this beetle if warranted through scientific study. 
Further studies have shown that this beetle does 
not inhabit the Sand Mountain sand dunes at 
this time. The Proposed Plan does not carry this 
proposed decision forth. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.62 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESP O N S E S 



T&E-9 

COMMENT: Reference was made to conducting 
a Section 7 consultation with the FWS for any 
actions relating to the Virgin spinedace in 
Chapter 4. This species is neither listed nor pro- 
posed for listing and should therefore not be dis- 
cussed under the Section 7 consultation process. 

RESPONSE: The Virgin spinedace was removed 
from a proposed listing status with the FWS in 
1996 after the Virgin Spinedace Conservation 
Agreement and Strategy was approved. Both 
federal and state agencies, including the FWS, 
were signatory to this agreement. The Draft RMP 
was published in the fall of 1 995, when the 
spinedace was still proposed for listing. 
Although future actions would not require a 
Section 7 consultation, the FWS is part of the 
Virgin Spinedace Conservation Team that over- 
sees administration of the conservation agree- 
ment. Actions that could affect the Virgin 
spinedace must be in compliance with the 
Conservation Agreement and Strategy. 

T&E-10 

COMMENT: Area limitations for peregrine falcon 
do not extend long enough to provide protection 
to the birds throughout the nesting period. In 
order to protect nestlings not yet fledged, the time 
should be extended through the end of July. 

RESPONSE: The American Peregrine Falcon 
Recovery Plan, approved on December 14, 
1984, indicates that fledging occurs in mid-June 
to mid-July. Because Washington County is at a 
lower elevation level than the majority of the 
Rocky Mountain southwest populations, season- 
al changes occur earlier, resulting in nesting and 
fledging occurring earlier. Studies conducted by 
BLM biologists in the Cedar City District indi- 
cate that young falcons in Washington County 
are fledged by the end of June, alleviating the 
need to continue protective status on those nest- 
ing sites throughout the month of July. 

T&E-11 

COMMENT: Wintering bald eagles roost com- 
munally in winter areas which may not be pro- 
tected by riparian measures. Locations of win- 
ter roosting areas need to be determined and 
those areas protected from disturbance for the 
duration of their use by bald eagles. 



RESPONSE: BLM works closely with the Utah 
Division of Wildlife Resources and the FWS dur- 
ing the scoping process of any proposed action 
requiring a NEPA document. Protection of bald 
eagle roosting sites would be determined on a 
case-by-case basis, as inventories are complet- 
ed, and consultation and coordination is 
accomplished. See the clarification to this effect 
in the Proposed Plan under the Fish and Wildlife 
FHabitat Management section. 

T&E-12 

COMMENT: Desert tortoise protection outside 
the critical habitat areas was not addressed. 
Increasing disturbance by hikers and their dogs 
on the small tortoise population near Zion 
National Park could become a serious problem 
and constitute a "taking" under the Endangered 
Species Act. 

RESPONSE: As per the FWS's Desert Tortoise 
Incidental Take Permit EIS (1995), the desert tor- 
toise area on private land contiguous to Zion 
National Park is a "take" area. The EIS states: 
"Desert tortoises are known to occur in the 
Springdale area immediately adjacent to Zion 
National Park in an area of approximately 159 
acres of private land. It is suspected that desert 
tortoises here were introduced and are not 
native to the area. The small parcel has been 
designated a take area due to its proximity to 
urban development and its isolation from the 
main desert tortoise populations in the county." 
BLM would be required to consult with the FWS 
prior to any irreversible or irretrievable action 
on any project that occurred outside of the HCP 
area that was authorized, funded, or carried out 
by the BLM that would affect tortoises or 
adversely modify critical habitat. This RMP does 
not provide for management of activities that 
occur on private lands. 

Category: Habitat Conservation Plan 

HCP-1 

COMMENT: How is BLM following the acquisi- 
tion strategy outlined in the HCP? 

RESPONSE: The acquisition strategy outlined in 
the HCP states that lands would be acquired 
upon the principle of willing seller/willing buyer 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.63 



CHAPTER 5 « PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



through three avenues: State Institutional Trusts 
Lands-BLM exchange, private iandowner-BLM 
exchange, and by purchase through the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCP). 
Acquisition through exchange has been imped- 
ed due to concerns for cultural resources, 
impacts to existing land uses, and disagreements 
between parties over land values. The State of 
Utah has entered into a Memorandum of 
Understanding with BLM to look at acquisition 
of public lands throughout Utah. However, the 
State Institutional Trust Lands Administration is 
still interested in developable lands within 
Washington County. Although some private 
land owners within the HCP would like to 
exchange for lands outside the State of Utah, 
congressional action would be necessary to 
allow this to happen. Approximately $2 million 
per year has been provided for purchase of pri- 
vate lands within the HCP through the LWCF. 
BLM is actively pursuing additional LWCP fund- 
ing to help alleviate current land base value dis- 
parities within the resource area. 

HCP-2 

COMMENT: Pressures from the creation of the 
HCP should not force the compromise of other 
equally critical areas. 

RESPONSE: We agree. Public land made avail- 
able for exchange within the resource area in 
order to implement the HCP are screened on 
many different levels by resource specialists. 
Numerous parcels, or portions thereof, that have 
been brought forth for discussion by applicants 
interested in exchange have been disapproved 
by the BLM due to other critical resources. See 
the Lands section in the Proposed Plan for land 
exchange criteria. 

HCP-3 

COMMENT: Why is there no mention of the 
FWS Incidental Take Permit EIS in the Draft 
RMP? The FEIS should display how both efforts 
relate and what the consequences are on each 
when implementing the other. 

RESPONSE: At the time of publication of the 
Draft RMP, the FWS Incidental Take Permit EIS 
on the Washington County HCP had not been 
completed. The Draft RMP went out for public 
review in October 1995, and the Take Permit 



was not approved until 1996. The Draft RMP 
did state, however, on page 1 .5 that; "This plan 
(Draft RMP) will consider the goals and objec- 
tives of the Desert Tortoise Habitat Management 
on the Public Lands: A Range Wide Plan, 1988. 
BLM will implement those portions of the 
Washington County Habitat Conservation Plan 
(April 1994) that affect public lands and are not 
contrary to laws, policy, or regulation." The 
Proposed Plan incorporates the Take EIS by ref- 
erence and portrays BLM decisions that are nec- 
essary to implement the HCP. 

Category: Minerals 
MIN-1 

COMMENT: The Woodbury Desert Study Area 
expanded ACEC boundary should be withdrawn 
from beatable mineral entry. This area was pro- 
posed as an ACEC so that the area's creosote- 
bush-bursage-joshua tree communities could be 
included in the regional, multiagency system of 
scientific reference/natural areas. 

RESPONSE: The Woodbury Desert Study Area 
has been included into the Beaver Dam Slope 
ACEC boundary; however, it is not withdrawn 
from locatable mineral entry in the Proposed 
Plan. Under mining law regulations, an ACEC 
requires that a plan of operation be completed 
prior to any surface disturbance; a locatable 
mineral withdrawal is not mandated. In addi- 
tion, the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan provides 
that mining activity would be continued in tor- 
toise areas. 

MIN-2 

COMMENT Map 2C.5 portrays the SI/2 of 
section 22, T. 43. S., R. 1 8 W. as a Category 2 
under Fluid Mineral leasing. Why is this so 
when the rest of the area is either a Category 3 
or Category 4? This is part of the Woodbury 
Desert Study Area proposed ACEC (incorporated 
into the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC) and should 
either be closed or put under no surface 
occupancy. 

RESPONSE: This area is all under a Category 3 
fluid mineral leasing stipulation due to the pro- 
posed ACEC designation. Refer to the Mineral 
Materials Map and the Wildlife section of the 
Proposed Plan for changes. This inconsistency 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.64 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



has also been resolved by changes to the Draft 
RMP (see Errata Sheet). 

MIN-3 

COMMENT: Draft RMP, Page 4.13, Column 2, 
Paragraph 4: What is the basis for estimating 
that 800 acres of desert tortoise habitat would 
be disturbed? 

RESPONSE: The 800 acres of estimated distur- 
bance was developed under a Reasonably 
Foreseeable Action (RFA) scenario. This is a 
potential future action where specific alloca- 
tions cannot be determined during development 
of the planned actions. RFAs are developed 
through interdisciplinary team input using past 
and present information to make an informed 
estimate of the potential action and its impacts. 
For further explanation, see the Draft RMP, Page 
4.1, and 4.9. Additional clarification of an RFA 
is presented in the Proposed Plan at the begin- 
ning of the Analysis section. New analysis in 
the Proposed Plan under the Wildlife section 
shows that only a portion of the high potential 
mineral area is overlain by critical desert tor- 
toise habitat, and acreage figures have been 
adjusted appropriately. 

MIN-4 

COMMENT: On the west side of the resource 
area, leaving the area open to mineral locations 
and allowing development of locatable minerals 
under a plan of operation is not congruous with 
closing the area to mineral materials and requir- 
ing no surface occupancy for fluid minerals 
development. 

RESPONSE: Section 204 of FLPMA allows for 
the withdrawal of land from the general land 
laws, including mineral location and entry. 
However, allowing mineral location in the area 
under a plan of operation provides for a man- 
aged, controlled, and monitored operation sub- 
ject to specific mitigation requirements imposed 
by the BLM. Mineral materials closures in this 
area are prescribed to protect riparian resources, 
high watershed values, and threatened and 
endangered species. Map 3.6 in the Draft RMP 
displays the known mineral materials potential 
in the western part of the Resource Area. It is 
evident that the majority of these materials 



occur along the Beaver Dam Wash, the most 
sensitive area of this desert ecosystem. 
Requiring a Category 3 (No Surface Occupancy) 
for fluid minerals development is also needed to 
protect the previously mentioned resources, 
while still allowing fluid mineral leasing to 
occur. 

MIN-5 

COMMENT On Map 2C.7, the Draft RMP dis- 
plays the Beaver Dam Wash (within desert tor- 
toise habitat) as being closed to mineral materi- 
als recovery. The Fish and Wildlife Tortoise 
Recovery Plan allows for limited mining in tor- 
toise habitat areas. 

RESPONSE: The mining allowed for in the 
Recovery Plan recognizes that valid existing 
rights under the 1 872 mining law will mean 
continued presence of mining operations for the 
life of the recovery project. Mineral materials 
sales are discretionary, however. BLM has pro- 
vided amply for mineral materials elsewhere in 
the resource area closer to the locations where 
such materials would be put to use. To further 
the objectives of desert tortoise recovery, the 
restrictions on mineral materials sales in the 
Beaver Dam Slope are warranted and in keeping 
with the goals of the Recovery Plan. 

Category: Soils 
SOIL-1 

COMMENT: The analysis did not provide solid 
information related to watershed sensitivity, 
areas of unstable terrain, or erosion concerns 
and their relationship to proposed activities. 
Referencing several soil surveys doesn't provide 
adequate evaluation of the affected environ- 
ment. Cumulative effects are impossible to 
determine without comprehensive soils 
discussion. 

RESPONSE: As discussed in the Chapter 3 Soil 
section of the Draft RMP, prior watershed condi- 
tion inventories were completed in the 1980s. 
FHowever, these inventories were determined to 
be unreliable. The only information available 
concerning soils is discussed in the Draft RMP, 
Chapter 3. NEPA does not require inventory or 
reinventory to acquire deficient information, but 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.65 



CHAPTER 5 » PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT RMP/EIS AND RESPONSES 



to use the best information currently available. 
Map 3.7 in the Draft RMP displays saline, gyp- 
sum, and high erosion hazard soils. In addition, 
Map 3.9 depicts the Navajo aquifer, municipal 
watersheds, and critical watersheds currently 
known within the resource area. The sensitive 
areas shown on these maps have been used 
extensively to help formulate decisions through- 
out the planning process. We feel that they pro- 
vide critical information to the affected environ- 
ment section of the Draft RMP, and certainly 
drive portions of the environmental and cumula- 
tive impact analysis. 

Category: Socioeconomic Factors 

SOEC-1 

COMMENT: The Draft RMP used as a basis for 
analysis the assumption that BLM lands con- 
tribute little or nothing to the personal income 
and tax base and that there are no unavoidable 
adverse impacts. These are clearly not valid 
assumptions and constitute a serious major flaw 
in the Draft RMP. 

RESPONSE: See the new socioeconomic evalu- 
ation in the Proposed Plan for clarification and 
new analysis. 

SOEC-2 

COMMENT: The adverse impacts of the restric- 
tions and closures on the human environment 
and the custom and culture of local people 
must be identified and evaluated in the EIS. 



RESPONSE: Refer to the new Socioeconomic 
analysis in the Proposed Plan for an overview of 
the impacts to socioeconomics from the 
Proposed Plan. 

Category: Fire 

FIRE-1 

COMMENT: Numerous comments concerning 
the Fire section in the Draft RMP were submit- 
ted to BLM during the comment period from 
various state and local agencies. These com- 
ments pointed out the inconsistencies of the 
preliminary fire management decisions through- 
out the Fire section. 

RESPONSE: The Department of the Interior has 
changed the direction that fire management will 
be taking in the future. The preliminary deci- 
sions brought forth in the Fire section of the 
Draft RMP have been replaced by a new fire 
protocol that is discussed in the Proposed Plan. 
An activity level Dixie Fire Plan is currently 
being completed in coordination with federal, 
state, and local agencies. A brief overview of 
the future Fire Plan is provided in the Proposed 
Plan; however, detailed actions and analysis will 
occur during the activity level planning stage. 
Since the publication of the Draft RMP, new fire 
protocols essentially state that BLM would rein- 
troduce fire back into ecosystems in a manner 
that protects life, property, and sensitive 
resources. See the Fire Management section in 
the Proposed Plan. The Dixie Resource Area 
will conduct activity level plans and NEPA 
analysis for fire planning in the future. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



5.66 



Wildfires Would Be Managed According to Plans 

Wildland fires caused by lightning or human error occur with modest frequency on public lands 

within the count}'^. BLM priorities for wildfire management and suppression would be to 

protect life, propert)', and critical resource values. Suppression strategies would be guided by 

approved fire management plans and would allow natural and prescribed fires where 

appropriate conditions, limitations, and safety precautions are in place. 



''lllili- 





iV<B~»tM'M# i. ■ ''iSf^MMm^»i^;if?M^^S^mi0M 



-AA''^^.Xa?' 





BLM Provides Mineral Materials for Public Use 

Public lands provide valuable sources of mineral materials that include sand, gravel, cinders, 

and decorative stone. Community pits like the one pictured above near the regional landfill 

v^^ould continue to make mineral materials available under appropriate permits 

to businesses, contractors, individuals, and local and state agencies. 



ijiM^jLimJc; <iisiiiii:.iliiijijiigi^«iiiiiiiil^^ 



i^Si' 



The following are standard operating procedures 
applied to surface disturbing activities. These 
measures are applied, when necessary, to 
reduce environmental impacts. Some projects 
may require construction use plans and/or recla- 
mation plans. 

General 

Areas subject to surface disturbance would be 
evaluated for the presence of cultural resources 
or values. This is usually accomplished through 
the completion of a cultural clearance. An on- 
the-ground inspection by a qualified archeolo- 
gist, historian, or paleontologist is required. 

In cases where cultural resources are found, the 
preferred response would be to modify the pro- 
posed action to avoid the cultural resource 
(avoidance). If avoidance is not possible, actions 
would be taken to preserve the data or value 
represented by the cultural resource (mitigation). 

Areas subject to surface disturbance would be 
evaluated for the presence of threatened, endan- 
gered, or candidate animal or plant species. 
This is usually accomplished through the com- 
pletion of a biological clearance. An on-the- 
ground inspection by a qualified biologist is 
required. 

In cases where threatened, endangered, or can- 
didate species are effected, the preferred 
response would be to modify the proposed 
action to avoid species or their habitat (avoid- 
ance). If avoidance of a threatened, endan- 
gered, or candidate species or its habitat is not 
possible, a Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) would be 
required, and a biological assessment would be 
prepared to recommend actions to protect the 
species or its habitat. 

Roads 

Recognized roads, as shown on the Cedar City 
District Office Transportation Plan, will be used 
when the alignment is acceptable for the pro- 
posed use. At a minimum, vehicle use will be 



limited to existing roads and trails in fragile soil 
areas. Generally, new roads will be required to 
follow natural contours, be constructed in 
accordance with the standards described in 
BLM Road Standards and BLM Manual section 
91 1 3, and be reclaimed to BLM standards. 

In order to control or reduce sediment from 
roads, proper road placement and buffer strips 
to stream channels, graveling, proper drainage, 
seasonal closure, and in some cases, redesign or 
closure of old roads, will be required. 
Construction may be prohibited during periods 
when soil material is saturated, frozen, or when 
watershed damage is likely to occur. 

On newly constructed roads and permanent 
roads, the placement of topsoil, seeding, and 
stabilization will be required on all cut and fill 
slopes (unless conditions prohibit this, e.g., 
rock). No unnecessary sidecasting of material 
(e.g., maintenance) on steep slopes will be 
allowed. In areas of higher elevation within the 
resource area, snow removal plans may be 
required while a road is used for access so that 
snow removal does not adversely affect recla- 
mation efforts or resources adjacent to the road. 

Reclamation of abandoned roads will include 
requirements for reshaping, recontouring, resur- 
facing with topsoil, installation of water bars, 
and seeding on the contour. The removal of 
structures such as bridges, culverts, cattleguards, 
and signs will be required. Stripped vegetation 
will be spread over the disturbance for nutrient 
recycling where practical. Fertilization or fenc- 
ing of these disturbances will not normally be 
required. Additional erosion control measures 
(e.g., fiber matting) and road barriers to discour- 
age travel will be required if necessary. 

Temporary road closures may be needed during 
spring runoff periods, in elk wintering areas, or 
other critical areas to protect resources. 

Well Pads And Facilities 

Any sediment control structures, reserve pits, or 
disposal sites would be designed to contain a 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMTACT STATEMENT 



A1.1 



APPENDIX 1 « STANDARD PROCEDURES APPLIED TO SURFACE DISTURBING ACTIVITIES 



1 00-year flood, 6-hour storm event. Storage 
volumes within these structures would have a 
design life of 25 years. 

Abandoned sites must be satisfactorily rehabili- 
tated by the lessee in accordance with a plan 
approved by the BLM. 

Before reserve pits and production pits are 
reclaimed, all residue will be removed and 
trucked off-site to an approved disposal site. 

All surface use plans covering reclamation will 
be adhered to. This plan will include objectives 
for successful reclamation covering soil stabi- 
lization, plant community composition, and 
desired vegetation density and diversity. 

No surface disturbance is allowed on slopes in 
excess of 25 percent unless erosion controls can 
be ensured and adequate revegetation is expect- 
ed. Detailed engineering proposals and revege- 
tation and restoration plans will be required in 
these areas. 

On producing locations, operators will be 
required to reduce slopes to original contours 
(not to exceed 3:1 slopes). Terraces or elongat- 
ed water breaks (erosion control measures) will 
be required after slope reduction. Facilities will 
be required to approach zero runoff from the 
location until the area is stabilized to avoid con- 
tamination and water quality degradation down- 
stream. All unused portions of facilities or pro- 
ducing well locations will be resurfaced with 
topsoil and seeded with soil stabilizing species. 
Mulching, erosion control measures, and fertil- 
ization may be required to achieve acceptable 
stabilization. 

Abandoned locations will be required to be 
recontoured to conform to the surrounding ter- 
rain. Construction of erosion and runoff control 
measures and placement of topsoil will be 
required after recontouring. All sediment will 
be retained on site. 

The collection and analysis of soil samples from 
disturbed areas may be required to determine 
reclamation potential, appropriate seed mix- 
tures, and nutrient deficiencies. This will be the 
responsibility of the grantee or lessee. Testing 
(as determined by the BLM) may include pH, 



mechanical analysis, limiting salt content, nitro- 
gen, phosphorus, and potassium. 

Fertilization may be required if there is evidence 
of a nutrient deficiency. If needed to produce 
adequate germination and growth, the topsoil 
and selected seed species would be inoculated 
with soil microorganisms. The site will be seed- 
ed if slopes exceed 30 percent or contain 35 
percent surface rock content. Mulching and 
fencing, unless deemed unnecessary due to 
low grazing pressure, will be required. Fences 
will be required to remain until reclamation is 
successful. 

Reshaping to create shallow depressions (to catch 
surface runoff) may be required in areas receiving 
1 inches or less of annual precipitation. 

No sour gas (natural gas containing dangerous 
levels of hydrogen sulfide) lines will be located 
closer than 1 mile to a populated area or sensi- 
tive receptor. The applicants must use the best 
available engineering design (i.e., alignment, 
block valve type and spacing, pipe grade, etc.), 
and best construction techniques (i.e., surveil- 
lance, warning signs, etc.) as approved by the 
authorized officer to minimize both the proba- 
bility of rupture and radius of exposure in the 
event of an accidental pipeline release of sour 
gas. A variance from the 1 -mile distance may 
be granted by the authorized officer based on 
detailed site-specific analysis that would consid- 
er meteorology, topography, and special 
pipeline design and/or construction measures. 
This analysis would ensure that populated areas 
and sensitive receptors would not be exposed to 
an increased level of risk. 

Pipelines and 
Communication Lines 

Existing crowned and ditched roads will be 
used where possible to minimize surface 
disturbances. 

Where possible, clearing of pipeline and com- 
munication line rights-of-way will be accom- 
plished with the least degree of disturbance to 
topsoil. Where topsoil removal is necessary, it 
will be stockpiled (windrowed) and respread 
over the disturbance after construction and 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



A1.2 



APPENDIX 1 ^ STANDARD PROCEDURES APPLIED TO SURFACE DISTURBING ACTIVITIES 



backfilling are completed. Vegetation removed 
from the right-of-way will also be required to be 
respread to provide protection, nutrient recy- 
cling, and a natural seed source. 

To promote soil stability, the compaction of 
backfill will be required (not to extend above 
the original ground level after the fill has set- 
tled). Water bars, mulching, and terracing will 
be required, as needed, to minimize erosion. 
Instream protection structures (e.g., drop struc- 
tures) may be required in drainages crossed by a 
pipeline to prevent erosion. 

The fencing of linear disturbances near livestock 
watering areas (distance determined on site- 
specific basis) may be required. 

If linear facilities follow the same right-of-way 
for all or part of the route, they will generally be 
required to be constructed so that only one 
reclamation effort is required. Generally, they 
will be required to be constructed either con- 
currently or during the same field season. 

Applicants constructing water pipelines across 
public lands may be asked to supply a small 
water tap for use by wildlife or livestock. 

Air Quality 
Protection Measures 

Special air quality protection-related stipulations 
may be added to BLM grants of rights-of-way 
necessary for construction. In addition, BLM 
will coordinate with the Utah Department of 
Environmental Quality (Utah DEQ) during the 
issuance of permits to construct emission 
sources. This coordination may result in the 
addition of stipulations to these permits. 

BLM will require the applicant to prepare a 
detailed analysis of the risks involved with the 
development of sour gas pipelines and treatment 
facilities. These analyses are designed to project 
impacts both to the public and to resource val- 
ues. Plant siting will be scrutinized to ensure 
that only areas with the least potential for the 
transport of pollutants are considered. To aid in 
achieving these goals, BLM will consult with the 
State of Utah, the Forest Service, industry, and 
the public to ensure that the most technically 



sound, environmentally balanced, and economi- 
cally feasible decisions are made. 

Reclamation 

The objectives for reclamation efforts empha- 
size: 1) stabilization through establishment of 
ground cover, 2) establishment of vegetation 
consistent with land use objectives, 3) reduction 
of visual contrast, and 4) reshaping to natural 
contour. 

Reclamation will be required on all disturbed 
areas. On roads left intact for access purposes, 
the stabilization of all disturbed areas, except 
the running surface, will be required. 

Only areas needed for construction will be 
allowed to be disturbed. Reclamation (by the 
lessee or grant holder) will be initiated as soon 
as possible after a disturbance occurs. 
Continued efforts will be required until satisfac- 
tory vegetation cover is established and the site 
is stabilized. 

Topsoil 

Before a surface disturbing activity is autho- 
rized, BLM will determine total topsoil depth. 
The amount of topsoil to be removed, along 
with topsoil placement areas, will be specified 
in the authorization. The uniform distribution of 
topsoil over the area to be reclaimed will be 
required, unless conditions warrant a varying 
depth. On large surface disturbing projects, 
topsoil will be stockpiled, mulched, and seeded 
to reduce erosion. Where feasible, topsoil 
stockpiles will be required to be designed to 
maximize the surface area to reduce impacts to 
soil microorganisms. Areas used for spoil stor- 
age will be required to be stripped of topsoil 
before spoil placement. The replacement of 
topsoil after spoil removal will be required. 

Temporary disturbances which do not require 
major excavation (e.g., pipelines and communica- 
tion lines) may be stripped of vegetation to ground 
level using mechanical treatment, leaving topsoil 
intact and root mass relatively undisturbed. 

Seeding 

Only plant species adaptable to local soil and 

climatic conditions will be utilized in revegeta- 



DIXIE RESOURCF AREA PROPOSEn RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



A1.3 



APPENDIX 1 » STANDARD PROCEDURES APPLIED TO SURFACE DISTURBING ACTIVITIES 



tion efforts. On all areas to be reclaimed, seed 
mixtures will be required to be site-specific and 
to include species promoting soil stability. 
Livestock palatability and wildlife habitat needs 
will be given consideration in seed mix formula- 
tion. Interseeding, secondary seeding, or stag- 
gered seeding may be required to accomplish 
revegetation objectives. A friable, but firm seed 
bed will be required prior to seeding. Drill 
seeding will be required unless conditions indi- 
cate that broadcast seeding is necessary (e.g., 
greater than 30 percent slope or greater than 35 
percent rock content). During rehabilitation of 
areas in important wildlife habitat, provisions 
will be made for the establishment of native 
browse and forb species, if determined to be 
beneficial for the habitat affected. 

Follow-up seeding or corrective erosion control 
measures will be required on areas of surface dis- 
turbance which experience reclamation failure. 



tion from construction damage. Backfill will be 
required to be replaced in a similar sequence 
and density to preconstruction condition. The 
restoration of normal surface drainage will be 
required. 

Any mulch used will be free from mold, fungi, 
or noxious weed seeds. Mulch may include 
native hay, small grain straw, wood fiber, live 
mulch, cotton, jute, synthetic netting, and rock. 
Straw mulch should contain fibers long enough 
to facilitate crimping and provide the greatest 
cover. 

The grantee or lessee will be responsible for the 
control of all noxious weed infestations on sur- 
face disturbances. Control measures will 
adhere to those allowed in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation 
Treatment on BLM Lands (1991). 



Treatments 

Trees, shrubs, and ground cover (not to be 
cleared from rights-of-way) will require protec- 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



A1.4 



Public Lands Support Limited Mineral Extraction 

Most public lands in the resource area would remain open to exploration and 

location under the General Mining Act of 1872 and applicable state and federal regulations. 

Although extensive exploration and historic mining have occurred throughout the county^ 

only one major operation has been active on public lands in the past several years which 

is located at the Goldstrike Mine in the western part of the county. An open pit, heap leach gold 

and silver operation, the mine is now inactive and undergoing final reclamation. 




















*>j**» ~!misx4if--»iftusm-^ 



Endangered Plants 

Need Protection jrowi 

Urban Impacts 

Washington County, Utah, is the only 

known location of the endangered 

Dwarf bear-claw poppy (pictured). 

Habitat for this rare plant in and around 

St. George is threatened by urban 

expansion and OHV activity. 

BLM proposes to establish two Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern and to 

implement protective measures that would 

ensure the plant's survival. 

BLM would also continue to collaborate 

with universities, researchers, conservation 

groups, and other agencies to conduct 

needed studies on plant and habitat 

requirements. BLM would implement 

similar measures to protect other rare plants 

in the area, including the endangered 

Siler pincushion cactus. 






KiliiHilisgasiIlg;. 



Introduction 



One of the goals of this Proposed Plan is to 
allow appropriate oil and gas exploration and 
development. It is recognized that oil and gas 
operations must be analyzed under FLPMA and 
NEPA and mitigated to prevent unnecessary 
impacts to the human environment and natural 
resources. 

This Proposed Plan contains two elements 
which would control oil and gas leasing and 
operations. The first is the classification of all of 
the lands in the Dixie Resource Area and the 
application of stipulations where appropriate. 
This appendix details which stipulations would 
be applied to each parcel of land. The second 
element is addressed in Appendix 1, which lays 
out standard operating procedures for all surface 
disturbing activities. 

Oil and gas leasing and operations are regulated 
by 43 CFR 3100. These regulations are applica- 
ble on all leases and surface operations. 
Onshore Oil and Gas Orders also provide 
extensive protection for specific lease operations 
and are not repeated in this Proposed Plan. 

Lease terms are attached to every Offer to Lease 
and Lease for Oil and Gas (Form 31 00-1 1 ), 
which provide resource protection for land, 
water, and air, along with cultural, biological, 
and visual resources. The lease terms also 
address bonding and reclamation requirements. 

In addition to the federal regulations, there are 
also state regulations controlling oil and gas 
operations. These can be found in the Oil and 
Gas Conservation Act in Title 40-6 of the Utah 
Code. Counties may also regulate oil and gas 
operations through various ordinances, although 
they cannot prevent operations on a valid 
federal lease. 

Oil And Gas 

Leasing Categories 

The proposed RMP has four categories of leas- 
ing: 1) closed to leasing, 2) no surface occupan- 



cy, 3) open with stipulations, and 4) open. The 
closed to leasing category is established by 43 
CFR 3100.0-3, which exempts some specified 
lands from leasing. Some withdrawals and seg- 
regations also close lands to leasing, depending 
on the specific language in the withdrawal or 
segregation decision. No surface occupancy 
and open with stipulations are more fully 
described under "Oil and Gas Stipulations" in 
the following section. The open category is the 
remainder of the federal land for which no spe- 
cial concerns were noted that would require 
stipulations. 

Oil And Gas Stipulations 

Utah BLM policy (IM UT 90-157, January 24, 
1990) requires that oil and gas stipulations fol- 
low the format developed by the interagency 
Rocky Mountain Regional Coordination 
Committee (RMRCC) in 1989. This format has 
four basic parts: 1 ) the description of the stipu- 
lation, 2) the legal description of the lands on 
which it applies, 3) the purpose of the stipula- 
tions, and 4) modifications, exemptions, or 
waivers to the stipulation. 

Three categories of stipulations were developed 
by RMRCC. These are: 1) No Surface 
Occupancy (NSO), 2) Timing Limitations (TL), 
and 3) Controlled Surface Use (CSU). 

The RMRCC also recognized that occasionally 
more detailed information concerning limita- 
tions that already exist in law, lease terms, regu- 
lations, or operational orders may be needed. 
This information may be provided to the opera- 
tor in a Lease Notice. A Lease Notice may 
address special items the lessee should consider 
when planning operations, but does not impose 
new or additional restrictions. 

Lease Notices (LN) should not be confused with 
Notices to Lessees (NTL), which are described in 
43 CFR 31 64.2. A Notice to Lessee is a written 
notice issued by the authorized officer. NTLs 
implement regulations and operating orders, and 
serve as instructions on specific items of impor- 
tance within a state, district, or area. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



A2.1 



APPENDIX 2 » OIL AND GAS LEASING STIPULAT IONS 



In accordance with the RMRCC format, each 
stipulation may contain Modifications, 
Exceptions, and Waivers. These allow opera- 
tions where subsequent field studies or adminis- 
trative actions render the stipulation wholly or 
partly unnecessary for the protection of the 
human environment or natural resources. 

• A Modification is defined as a "fundamen- 
tal change to the provisions of a lease 
stipulation, either temporarily or for the 
term of the lease. A modification may, 
therefore, include an exemption from or 
alteration to a stipulated requirement. 
Depending on the specific modification, 
the stipulation may or may not apply to 
all other sites within the leasehold to 
which the restrictive criteria applied." 

• An Exemption is defined as a "case-by- 
case exemption from a lease stipulation. 
The stipulation continues to apply to all 
other sites within the leasehold to which 
the restrictive criteria applies." 

• A Waiver is defined as a "permanent 
exemption from a lease stipulation. The 
stipulation no longer applies anywhere 
within the leasehold." 

Table A2-1 outlines oil and gas stipulations for 
No Surface Occupancy, Table A2-2 profiles 
Conditional Use Surface Stipulations for oil and 
gas development. Table A2-3 provides Timing 
Limitation Stipulations, and Table A2 -4 denotes 
Lease Notice items for the Proposed Plan. 

Split-Estate Lands 

Split-estate lands are lands in which the surface 
and mineral estates are owned by different enti- 
ties. The lands of concern are where the surface 
is owned by either a private entity or the state, 
but oil and gas rights are retained by the federal 
government. 

Split-estate lands are open to leasing unless one 
of the exemptions in 43 CFR 3100.0-3 apply; 
however, the Proposed Plan may apply stipula- 
tions as needed to protect surface resources. 

The BLM policy for oil and gas leasing and 
approval of lease operations was set forth in 



Washington Office IM-89-201, January 4, 1989. 
This policy states: 

• BLM need only consider the planning and 
management of federal minerals under the 
Federal Land and Policy Management Act 
(FLPMA). Activities and use of the surface 
are not subject to FLPMA planning 
requirements, and the BLM has no author- 
ity under FLPMA over use of the surface 
by the surface owner. The same standard 
for environmental protection will be 
applied on split-estate lands as would be 
used for federal surface. 

• BLM's National Environmental Protection 
Act (NEPA) responsibilities are basically 
the same as for federal surface. The fact 
that impacts will occur on private surface 
does not diminish the BLM's responsibili- 
ty to consider alternatives or the BLM's 
authority to impose mitigation measures 
since the impacts will be caused as a 
direct consequence of activity approved 
by the BLM and conducted pursuant to a 
federal oil and gas lease. The BLM should 
carefully consider the views of the surface 
owner and the effect on the owner's use 
of the surface from implementation of 
possible mitigation measures, as well as 
the effect such measures would have on 
attaining other program goals. 

• LJnder the National FHistoric Preservation 
Act, BLM is responsible for consulting 
with the State FHistoric Preservation 
Officer to identify and mitigate the effects 
of its actions and authorizations on his- 
toric properties and, if effects would 
occur, for giving the Advisory Council on 
FHistoric Preservation an opportunity to 
comment. These responsibilities are the 
same on split-estate lands as on public 
lands. 

• Oil and gas leasing and operations on 
split-estate lands constitute federal actions 
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 
As such, the requirements and procedures 
of the ESA apply to split estate lands 

just as they do to federal lands including, 
as appropriate, preparation of biological 
assessments and the conduct of 
consultations. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



A2.2 



APPENDIX 2 « Q I L AND GAS LEASING STIPULATIONS 



• If the surface owner refuses access, it may 
be feasible to obtain the needed informa- 
tion without actual entry onto the private 
surface. 

In order to prevent problems with incompatible 
development, the Proposed Plan includes a no 
surface occupancy stipulation for split-estate 
lands with authorized residential subdivisions, 
just as it does l^or surface structures and 
improvements on federal land, in all other 



cases, split-estate lands in the Dixie Resource 
Area will be categorized and have the same 
stipulations applied as the nearby federal lands. 
For example, if there is a riparian zone and criti- 
cal deer winter range on the parcel, the parcel 
would be categorized as open with stipulations. 
The no surface occupancy stipulation would be 
applied to the riparian zone and the timing 
limitation stipulation would be applied to the 
winter range, just as if the surface was in federal 
ownership. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



A2.3 



TABLE A2-1 ® No Surface Occupancy Stipulations 



STIP 
CODE 



PROTECTED RESOURCE 



AREAS 
PROTECTED 



ACRES 
PROTECTED 



STIPULATION DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE 



NSO 01 Surface structures and devel- 

opments 





c 



S 

> 



FS Admin Site 

(T. 39 S., R. 16W., sec.3 

S2SWSESE) 

Public Water Reserves 

Baker Dam Developed 
Recreation Area 

Red Cliffs Developed 
Recreation Area 

R&PP Leases and Patents 

Dinosaur Trackway 



1,137 
290 

1,085 

620+ 
40 



Surface structures and developments. 

These sites have surface developments or features which are not compatible 
with oil and gas drilling or production. 

EXCEPTION: None 

MODIFICATION: None 

WAIVER: A waiver may be granted by the Area Manager if the surface structure 
or development being protected is removed, relinquished, or abandoned. 



NSO-02 Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat Beaver Dam Slope ACEC 

in Special Management Areas 

Washington County F4CP 
Reserve 



z 




z 
£ 



48,519 Desert Tortoise critical habitat: These sites encom|3as5 the habitat which has 

been determined to be critical to the survival of the Desert Tortoise population. 
45,270 The Desert Tortoise is a listed species under the Endangered Species Act. 

EXCEPTION: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception (allow surlace 
occupancy) upon completion of formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service that yields a no-jeopardy opinion if a plan of development is 
submitted that does not significantly impact tortoise habitats or populations. 
The plan of development may demonstrate no significant impact will occur 
through mitigation of impacts, compensation (in accordance with Bureau poli- 
cy), and restoration of the land to predisturbance condition. 

MODIFICATION: The Authorized Officer may modify the area of this stipulation 
to accommodate approved minor changes in the Washington County HCP 
Reserve boundarv. 



WAIVER: None 



TABLE A2-1 (continued) • No Surface Occupancy Stipulations 



2 

> 



STIP 
CODE 



PROTECTED RESOURCE 



AREAS 
PROTECTED 



NSO-03 



Natural, scenic, and primitive 
recreational values associated 
with special management 
areas 



ACRES 
PROTECTED 



STIPULATION DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE 



Closed OHV areas: 

Primitive ROS areas 
(Beartrap Canyon, Taylor 
Creek Canyon, LaVerkin 
Creek Canyon, Cottonwood 
Canyon, Canaan Mountain, 
Red Mountain, LaVerkin 
Creek/Black Ridge, Deep 
Creek) 

Segments of rivers classified as 
wild and proposed as suitable 
under the W&S 
River Act. 



91,704 total: 

All areas listed are 
included within the 
OHV Closed 
designation 



jNatural, scenic, and primitive recreational values associated with special man- 
agement areas: 

These sites have primitive recreational values which are not compatible with oil 
and gas drilling or production. 

EXCEPTION: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception for roads, 
pipelines, or power lines to cross these areas if there is no practical alternative 
route and mitigation can be applied to reduce impacts to a satisfactory level. 

MODIFICATION: None. 

WAIVER: None 



> 

N3 



Canaan Mountain SRMA 
Ripple Arch 



NSO-04 



Back Country Byway Scenery 



o 



0.5 mile either side of 
centerline of the Smithsonian 
Butte National Back Country 
Byway 



2,356 Back Countr\' Byway scenery: 

Oil and Gas exploration and development activities would be incompatible 
with the purpose of maintaining the scenic quality of the designated National 
Back Country Byway. 

EXCEPTION: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if a plan of devel- 
opment is submitted demonstrating the activity would be fully screened from 
the byway, and the values for which the Back Country Byway was established 
would be preserved. 

MODIFICATION: The Authorized Officer may modify the width (to less than 
0.5 mile from the centerline) if it is demonstrated a narrower width would 
allow the activity to be fully screened from the byway, and the values for which 
the Backcountry Byway was established would be preserved. 

WAIVER: none 



TABLE A2-1 (continued) » No Surface Occupancy Stipulations 



STIP 
CODE 



PROTECTED RESOURCE 



AREAS 
PROTECTED 



ACRES 
PROTECTED 



STIPULATION DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE 



NSO^OS 



ACEC Values 



> 



O 

z 



Warner Ridge/ Ft. Pearce 
ACEC 

Red Bluff ACEC 

Canaan Mountain ACEC 

Red Mountain ACEC 

The part of the Upper Beaver 
Dam Wash ACEC closed to 
OHV 

Lower Virgin River ACEC 

Santa Clara River/Land Hill 
ACEC 



4,281 

6,186 
31,355 

4,854 
15,968 

1,822 
1,645 



ACEC values: 

Values to be protected are: 

Warner Ridge/Ft. Pearce - Endangered Plant species, saline soils, riparian sys- 
tem, candidate animal species, waterfowl, raptors, and nongame species. 

Red Bluff - Endangered plant species and saline soils. 

Canaan Mountain - FHigh scenic values and cultural resources 

Red Mountain - High scenic values. 

Upper Beaver Dam Wash - Watershed and riparian values 

Lower Virgin River - Riparian values, endangered fish habitat, cultural 
resources, and wildlife habitat 

Santa Clara River/Land Hill - Cultural resources, candidate fish species, riparian 
values, and wildlife habitat 

These values are incompatible with surface or visual disturbances resulting from 
oil and gas exploration and development. 

EXCEPTIONS: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception for specific, low- 
impact actions if a plan of development is submitted which demonstrates the 
project will preserve the values for which the ACEC was established. 

MODIFICATIONS: None 

WAIVER: None. 



TABLE A2-1 (continued) • No Surface Occupancy Stipulations 



STIP 
CODE 



PROTECTED RESOURCE 



AREAS 
PROTECTED 



ACRES 
PROTECTED 



STIPULATION DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE 




c 



NSO-06 



Riparian zone 



All mapped riparian zones in 
Dixie Resource Area 



4,600 Riparian zone: 

Tlie need to Improve and maintain vegetation and functional conditions of 
riparian zones in the Dixie Resource Area is incompatible with the disturbances 
resulting from oil and gas exploration and development. No surface occupancy 
restrictions would protect important biological components and habitats of resi- 
dent and migratory species listed under the Endangered Species Act or other- 
wise at risk from declining habitat quality or availability. 

For the protection of impoundments and streams, and/or riparian wetland vege- 
tation zones, activities associated with oil and gas exploration and develop- 
ment, including roads, transmission lines, and storage facilities, are restricted to 
an area beyond the riparian vegetation zone 

EXCEPTION: 



> 



The Authorized Officer may grant an exception for roads, pipelines, or power 
lines if there is no practical alternative route and mitigation can be applied to 
reduce impacts to a satisfactory level. 

MODIFICATION: None 

WAIVER: None 



NSO-07 



Split-Estate lands 



Lands with oil and gas rights 
retained by federal govern- 
ment, with surface in private 
ownership, and with a county 
approved residential subdivi- 
sion (planned or existing) 



24,136 Split-Estate Lands: 

The impacts of oil and gas development are generally incompatible with resi- 
dential subdivisions. 

EXCEPTIONS: None 

MODIFICATIONS: A modification may be granted by the Authorized Officer if 
the operator provides written documentation that lease operations are approved 
by the surface owner. 

WAIVER: A waiver may be granted by the Authorized Officer if the operator 
provides written documentation that lease operations are approved by the sur- 
face owner. 



TABLE A2-2 • Conditional Surface Use Stipulations 



STIP 
CODE 



PROTECTED RESOURCE 



AREAS 


ACRES 


PROTECTED 


PROTECTED 


Severely eiodible soils as 


121,865 


mapped 




Curly Hollow watershed 


11,210 


Frog Hollow watershed 


6,760 


Slopes equal Lo or greater 


various 



STIPULATION DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE 



O 

o 



o 

c 



> 



> 

03 



CSU-01 



Fragile soils 



than 25 percent 



Fragile Soil Areas: Prior to surface disturbance of fragile soils, it must be 
demonstrated to the Authorized Officer through a plan of development that the 
follow performance objectives will be met. 

Performance Objectives: 



I. Maintain the soil productivity of the site 

II. Protect off-site areas by preventing accelerated soil erosion (such as lands- 
liding, gullying, rilling, piping, etc.) from occurring. 

III. Protect water quality and quantity of adjacent surface and groundwater 
sources. 

IV. Select the best possible site for development in order to prevent impacts 
to the soil and water resources. 

EXCEPTION: None. 

MODIFICATION: None. 

WAIVER: None 



z 

o 




z 

z 

-i 
> 






TABLE A2-2 (continued) • Conditional Surface Use Stipulations 



STIP 
CODE 



PROTECTED RESOURCE 



> 

N3 



CSU-02 Surface and ground- 

water quality 



AREAS 
PROTECTED 



ACRES 
PROTECTED 



Municipal waterslieds 

High recharge areas of Navajo 
aquifer 

Lower part of Upper Beaver 
Dam Wash ACEC 

Santa Clara River/ Gunlock 
ACEC 



3,116 
22,650 

17,095 

1,998 



STIPULATION DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE 



Surface and Ground Water Quality: Prior to authorizing surface disturbance, 
the Authorized Officer may require the proponent to submit a plan of develop- 
ment which would demonstrate the proposed action would not: 

(1) result in a net increase in sediment contribution, and/or 

(2) degrade existing water quality parameters, including but not limited to 
specific conductance, turbidity, organic/inorganic contaminant levels, and 
dissolved oxygen. 

If approval is granted, and developments result in these standards being 
exceeded, additional measures would be required to correct the deficiencies. 

The proponent may be required to monitor surface and ground water through- 
out the life of the project. 

EXCEPTION: None 

MODIFICATION: None. 

WAIVER: None. 



CSU-03 FERC and powersite with- 

drawals 



Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission withdrawals 

Powersite withdrawals 



196 



2,138 



FERC and Powersite Withdrawals: 

Withdrawals will be subject to Special Stipulations required by the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (see BLM Form 3730-1). 

EXCEPTION: None 

MODIFICATION: None 



D 
z 



WAIVER: The Authorized Officer may waive this stipulation if the withdrawals 
are relinquished or terminated. 



TABLE A2-3 • Timing Limitation Stipulations 



STIP 
CODE 



PROTECTED RESOURCE 



AREAS 
PROTECTED 



ACRES 
PROTECTED 



STIPULATION DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE 



TL-Ql 



Mule Deer 



Crucial mule deer winter 
ranee 



45,897 Mule Deer: This area encompasses mule deer winter range designated as cru- 

cial by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. No development activity is 
allowed from November 1 through April 15. (Development is allowed between 
April 15 and October 31.) 



> 



z 
> 



EXCEPTIONS: 

(1) The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if an environmental analysis 
indicates the proposed action could be conditioned so as not to interfere 
with habitat function or compromise animal condition with the project 
vicinity. 

(2) An exception may be granted if the proponent, BLM, and Utah DWR negoti- 
ate compensation that would satisfactorily offset anticipated impacts to mule 
deer winter activities or habitat condition. 

(3) Under mild winter conditions, when prevailing habitat or weather conditions 
allow early dispersal of animals from all or portions of the project area, an 
exception may be granted to suspend no more than the last 60 days of this 
seasonal limitation. Severity of winter will be determined on the basis of 
snow depth, snow crusting, daily mean temperatures, and whether animals 
were concentrated on the winter range during the winter months. 

(4) Exceptions may also be granted for actions specifically intended to enhance 
the long- term utility or availability of suitable habitat. 

MODIFICATIONS: 

(1 ) The Authorized Officer may modify the size and timeframes of this stipula- 
tion if Utah DWR monitoring information indicates current animal use pat- 
terns are no longer consistent with dates established for animal occupation. 

(2) Modifications may be authorized if the proposed action could be condi- 
tioned so as not to interfere with habitat function or compromise animal 
condition. 

(3) The limitation may be modified if the proponent, BLM, and Utah DWR 
agree to habitat compensation which satisfactorily offsets detrimental 
impacts to activity and habitat condition. 



WAIVER: 

This stipulation may be waived to the extent the Utah DWR determines that all 
or specific portions of the area no longer constitute real or prospective critical 
deer winter range. 



TABLE A2. 3 (continued) • Timing Limitation Stipulations 



o 

c 



STIP 
CODE 



PROTECTED RESOURCE 



AREAS 
PROTECTED 



ACRES 
PROTECTED 



Stipulation Description and Purpose 



TL-02 



Eik 



Elk calving areas 



2,900 Elk Calving Areas: This area encompasses elk calving areas. No development 

activity is allowed from May 1 through July 30 to prevent disruption to calving 
and subsequent loss of animals. (Development is allowed between August I 
and April 30.) 



i 



Q 

c 



»■ 
2 

> 

£ 
m 



z 



2 
< 

so 
O 

z 
£ 

rti 

2 
-I 
> 



EXCEPTIONS: 

(1 ) The Authorized Officer may grant an exception if an environmental analysis 
indicates the proposed action could be conditioned so as not to interfere 
with habitat function or compromise animal condition within the project 
vicinity. 

(2) An exception may be granted if the proponent, BLM, and Utah DVVR negoti- 
ate compensation that would satisfactorily offset anticipated impacts to elk 
calving activities or habitat condition. 

(3) Exceptions may also be granted for actions specifically intended to enhance 
the long- term utility or availability of suitable habitat. 

/MODIFICATION: 

(1 ) The Authorized Officer may modify the size and timeframes of this stipula- 
tion if Utah DWR monitoring information indicates that current animal use 
patterns are no longer consistent with dates established for animal occupa- 
tion. 

(2) Modifications may be authorized if the proposed action could be condi- 
tioned so as not to interfere with habitat function or compromise animal 
condition. 

(3) Modifications may be authorized if the proponent, BLM, and Utah DWR 
agree to habitat compensation that satisfactorily offsets detrimental impacts 
to activity and habitat condition. 

WAIVER: 

This stipulation may be waived to the extent the Utah DWR determines that all 
or specific portions of the area no longer constitute real or prospective elk calv- 
ing areas. 



TABLE A2.3 (continued) • Timing Limitation Stipulations 



STIP 
CODE 



PROTECTED RESOURCE 



AREAS 
PROTECTED 



ACRES 
PROTECTED 



TL-03 



Desert Tortoise 



Desert Tortoise habitat outside 
of the Washington County 
HCP Reserve and the Beaver 
Dam Slope ACEC 



STIPULATION DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE 



15,183 Desert Tortoise: This area encompasses identified Desert Tortoise habitat out- 

side of the Washington County HCP reserve and Beaver Dam Slope ACEC. No 
development is allowed between March 16 and October 14. (Development is 
allowed from October 1 5 to March 1 5 subject to on-site biological evaluation 
and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.) 

EXCEPTION: The Authorized Officer may grant an exception (allow develop- 
ment during the closed period) if formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service reveals no adverse impact to the tortoise habitat and yields a 
no-jeopardy opinion. 

MODIFICATION: None 

WAIVER: None 



TL-04 



Golden Eagle 



Nest sites 



> 

K5 



2 



Golden Eagle Nest Sites: This area encompasses identified Golden Eagle nest 
sites. No development is allowed within 0.5 mile of identified nests from 
February 1 to June 30, or until the fledging and dispersal of the young. 
(Development is allowed July 1 through January 31 .) 

EXCEPTION: 

(1 ) An exception may be granted if an environmental analysis of the proposed 
action indicates the nature or conduct of the activity could be conditioned 
so as to not impair the utility of the nest for current or subsequent nesting 
activity or occupancy. 

(2) An exception may be granted if the nest is unattended or remains unoccu- 
pied by April 1 5 of the project year. 

MODIFICATION: 

(1 ) The Authorized Officer may modify the size of the stipulation area if an 
environmental analysis indicates that a portion of the area is nonessential to 
nest utility or function. 

The Authorized Officer may modify the size of the stipulation area if the pro- 
posed action could be conditioned so as not to impair the utility of the nest 
site for current or subsequent nest activities or occupation. 



(2) 



WAIVER: 

A waiver may be granted if there is no reasonable likelihood of site occupation 

over a minimum 10-year period. 



TABLE A2. 3 (continued) • Timing Limitation Stipulations 



STIP 
CODE 



PROTECTED RESOURCE 



AREAS 
PROTECTED 



ACRES 
PROTECTED 



STIPULATION DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE 



TL-05 



Peregrine Falcon 



K'est sites 



o 

-a 
O 

a 

pa 
m 
w 

d 

c 
» 
n 

rri 

s 

> 
z 
> 



> 



Peregrine Falcon Nest Sites: This area encompasses identified Peregrine Falcon nest 
sites. No development is allowed within 0.5 mile of identified nests from March 15 
to June 30, or until the fledging and dispersal of the young. (Development is allowed 
July 1 through March 14.) 

EXCEPTION (after FWS consultation): 

(1) An exception may be granted if an environmental analysis of the proposed 
action indicates the nature or conduct of the activity could be conditioned so as 
to not impair the utility of the nest for current or subsequent nesting activity or 
occupancy. 

(2) An exception may be granted if the nest is unattended or remains unoccupied 
by May 1 5 of the project year. 

MODIFICATION (after FWS consultation): 

(1) The Authorized Officer may modify the size of the stipulation area if an envi- 
ronmental analysis indicates that a portion of the area is nonessential to nest util- 
ity or function. 

(2) The Authorized Officer may modify the size of the stipulation area if the pro- 
posed action could be conditioned so as not to impair the utility of the nest site 
for current or subsequent nest activities or occupation. 

WAIVER (after FWS consultation): 

A waiver may be granted if there is no reasonable likelihood of site occupation over 

a minimum 10-year period. 



TL-06 



Mexican Spotted Owl 



Nest sites 



z 
< 



1 ,812 Mexican Spotted Owl Nest Sites: This area encompasses identified Mexican Spotted 

Owl nest sites. No development is allowed within 0.5 mile of identified nests from 
February 1 to August 31, or until the fledging and dispersal of the young. 
(Development is allowed September 1 through January 31 .) 

EXCEPTION (after FWS consultation): 

(1) An exception may be granted if an environmental analysis of the proposed 
action indicates the nature or conduct of the activity could be conditioned so as 
to not impair the utility of the nest for current or subsequent nesting activity or 
occupancy. 

(2) An exception may be granted if the nest is unattended or remains Linoccu|3ied 
by May 1 5 of the project year 

MODIFICATION (after FWS consultation): 

(1) The Authorized Officer may modify the size of the stipulation area if an envi- 
ronmental analysis indicates that a portion of the area is nonessential to nest util- 
ity or function. 

(2) The Authorized Officer may modify the size of the stipulation area if the pro- 
posed action could be conditioned so as not to impair the utility of the nest site 
for current or subsequent nest activities or occupation. 

WAIVER (after FWS consultation): 

A waiver may be granted if there is no reasonable likelihood of site occupation over 

a minimum 10-year period. 



TABLE A2-4 • Lease Notices 



LEASE 
NOTICE 
CODE 



PROTECTED RESOURCE 



AREAS 
PROTECTED 



ACRES 
PROTECTED 



NOTICE DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE 



LN-01 



Reservoirs and perennial 
streams 



Mapped reservoirs 
identified perennial streams 



To protect reservoirs and perennial streams from unnecessary pollution and sed- 
imentation, 43 CFR 3101 .1-2 (the 200 meter rule) will be applied to prevent 
surface disturbance within 1 00 yards of the high water line of permanent water 
bodies. 



LN-02 Special Status Species habitat Mapped habitat for proposed 

and listed threatened and 
endangered species 



1 03,21 8 Leasing activity other than casual use will be subject to appropriate consulta- 

tion or conference with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 



> 



LN-03 



Riparian and riparian-related 200 meters adjacent to ripari- 
resources an areas 



43 CFR 3101.1-2 allows the Authorized Officer to require activities to be 
moved up to 200 meters to protect specific resources. The authorized officer 
may apply this regulation adjacent to riparian zones where site-specific analysis 
shows a need to further protect riparian- related resources including Southwest 
willow flycatcher habitat and nesting sites. 



> 



2 
O 



Mountain Biking Increases in Popularity 
on Public Lands in Washington County 

Mountain bikers are looking more and more to the numerous trails and scenic attractions 

of Washington County for individual and group riding. Large, organized events are bringing 

national recognition to the area along with questions on how to manage the Impacts 

of increasing numbers of riders on the fragile resources of the area. 









Livestock Grazing Is Important to 
Rural Economies and Lifestyles 

Livestock grazing continues to be an important part of multiple use on public lands and 

helps to maintain the rural lifestyle that characterizes much of Washington County. 

BLM will apply Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management 

to ensure that objectives for healthy rangelands will be achieved. 






M^S^ML''«MHWiHBiilM»iMWi 



Standards for Rangeland Health 

and 
Guidelines for Grazing Management 



for 
BLM Lands in Utah 




I- •». -»- 



^ < 







3^*' S&»" ,<(;.. .Jpy? "^' 



■*~'''»'*%^**^ 




United States 

Department of the Interior 

Bureau of i^nd Mlanagement 

Utah State Office 

May 1997 




DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 



A3.1 



APPENDIX 3 • STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

RECORD OF DECISION and FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT I 

IMPACT 

INTRODUCTION 1 

FUNDAMENTALS OF RANGELAND HEALTH 1 

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 3 

STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH 4 

GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT 6 

MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT 8 

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 9 

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 1 1 

LIST OF PREPARERS 18 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 1 9 

REFERENCES 26 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Monitoring and assessment techniques for 

measuring the indicators of Rangeiand health 

Appendix B. Application of Standards and Guidelines to 
multiple use management of BLM Lands 

Appendix C. NEPA documents dealing with Rangeiand Health 

which serve as basis for Administrative Determination 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.2 



APPENDIX 3 • STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



RECORD of DECISION 
and 
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 



ACTION 



Adopt and implement the Utah Bureau of Land Management Standards for Rangeland Health 
and Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM Lands in Utah. Standards describe the 
ecological conditions that BLM will achieve through management of land uses. Guidelines are 
grazing management practices that BLM will apply in order to attain those Standards. 



DECISION 

It is my decision to adopt and implement the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 
Grazing Management as described in the accompanying document, dated December 1996. 
These Standards and Guidelines are State Director's Policy, pursuant to 43 CFR 1600 (Planning 
Guidance) and 43 CFR 4180 (Grazing Administration). As such. Standards will apply to all BLM 
decisions conceming all uses of BLM Lands in Utah (notwithstanding law and regulation to the 
contrary), and Guidelines will apply to all BLM decisions concerning grazing on BLM Lands in 
Utah. 

Existing land use plans have been reviewed and I have determined that these Standards and 
Guidelines are in conformance with existing decisions contained in Resource Management Plans 
and Management Framework Plans in this state and supplement those plans. The plan 
conformance review document is available at the BLM Utah State Office. Those plans may be 
amended as necessary in the future to assure that objectives and decisions in those plans fully 
implement the requirements and intent of Standards and Guidelines. Existing plans affected by 
this decision are: 



Resource Management Plans Management Framework Plans 

Box Elder Randolph 

Pony Express Park City 

House Range Sevier River 

Warm Springs Mountain Valley 

Diamond Mountain Parker Mountain 

Book Cliffs Henry Mountain 

Price River Paria 

San Rafael Zion 

Grand Vemaillion 

San Juan Virgin River 

Cedar-Beaver-Garfield-Antamony Pinyon 

This decision will be effective upon approval of these Standards and Guidelines by the Secretary 

of the Interior, which is anticipated prior to Febmary 12, 1997. If they are not approved prior to 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.3 



APPENDIX 3 ' STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



that date, the Fallback Standards and Guidelines contained in 43 CFR 4180 may be 
implemented. The Fallback Standards and Guidelines, if so implemented, will remain in effect 
until the proposed Standards and Guidelines are approved. 

A period for public protest and the Governor's Consistency Reviev*/ is being provided pursuant to 
BLM regulations. That period ends January 28, 1997. Protests are to be filed with the Utah 
State Director, Bureau of Land Management, P.O.Box 45155, Salt Lake City, UT 84145-1155. 



FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 

Based on scoping, public participation, and the comparison of anticipated impacts 
described in the Administrative Determination contained in the Draft Utah Standards and 
Guidelines, I have detenmined that no significant impacts will occur and that neither an 
environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment is required. Impacts from 
implementing the Utah Standards and Guidelines would be the same as implementing the 
Fallback Standards and Guidelines analyzed in the Rangeland Refonm '94 EIS. In the short term 
and long term there will be beneficial impacts to water quality, riparian and ten-estrial wildlife 
habitat, wildlife, riparian area functions, ecological processes, rangeland productivity and plant 
cover and diversity. In the short term there will be impacts to grazing permittees and some land 
users in the fonn of increased costs, restrictions or changes in the way BLM Lands are used 
and/or reductions in allowable use. In the long term, rangeland resource production will be 
sustained, both in amount and quality, and grazing permittees and other users should realize a 
gain. 



APPROVED BY: 




G. Willie 

State Director, Utah 



'Dat4 



APPROVED BY: 

MAY 20 1997 




Bruce Babbitt Date 

Secretary of the Interior 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.4 



APPENDIX 3 ' STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



INTRODUCTION 

This document describes policies, practices, and procedures that the Bureau of 
Land IVlanagement (BLM) in Utah will implement in order to assure BLM lands are 
healthy. The concept of healthy rangelands expresses the BLM's desire to maintain or 
improve productivity of plant, animal (including livestock), soil, and water resources at 
a level consistent with the ecosystem's capability. 

In order to meet society's needs and expectations for susfa/necf production and 
conservation of natural resources from BLM rangelands, use of these lands must be 
kept in balance with the land's ability to sustain those uses. Identifying that balance 
requires an understanding and application of ecological principles that determine how 
living and non-living components of rangelands interact. Recognition of the 
interdependence of soil, water, plants, and animals (including livestock) is basic to 
maintaining healthy rangelands and the key element in BLM's proposed Standards 
and Guidelines. 

The policies, practices, and procedures contained in this document are referred 
to as Standards and Guidelines. Standards and Guidelines will apply to all uses of 
BLM land for forage, including livestock, wildlife, and wild horses and burros. 

Standards describe desired ecological conditions that BLM intends to attain in 
managing BLM lands, whereas Guidelines define practices and procedures that will be 
applied to achieve Standards. While Standards will initially be applied to grazing, it is 
BLM's intent to eventually apply these Standards to all rangeland uses that have the 
ability to affect or be affected by the ecological characteristics of rangelands. 



FUNDAMENTALS OF RANGELAND HEALTH 

The Bureau of Land Management has defined four Fundamentals of Rangeland 
Health, which are the basic ecological principles underlying sustainable production of 
rangeland resources. These Fundamentals are embodied in BLM's new Grazing 
Regulation (43 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 4100) which became effective in 
August of 1995. These four Fundamentals of Rangeland Health, which also serve 
as the basis for Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Management, are: 

1) Watersheds are in, or are making significant progress toward, properly 
functioning physical condition, including their upland, riparian/wetland, and 
aquatic components; soil and plant conditions support water infiltration, soil 
moisture storage, and release of water that are in balance with climate and 
landform, and maintain or improve water quality, water quantity, and timing and 
duration of flow. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.5 



APPENDIX 3 » STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



2) Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycles, 
and energy flow, are maintained, or there is significant progress toward their 
attainment, in order to support healthy biotic populations and communities. ^ 

3) Water quality complies with State water quality standards and achieves, 
or is making progress toward achieving, established BLM management 
objectives such as meeting wildlife needs. 

4) Habitats are, or are making significant progress toward being, restored 
or maintained for Federal threatened and endangered species. Federal Proposed, 
Federal Candidate, other special status species, native species, and for 
economically valuable game species and livestock. 

By developing Standards and Guidelines based on the Fundamentals listed 
above, and by applying those Standards and Guidelines to BLM land management, it 
is BLM's intent to: 

-> PROMOTE HEALTHY, SUSTAINABLE RANGELAND ECOSYSTEMS THAT 
PRODUCE A WIDE RANGE OF PUBLIC VALUES SUCH AS WILDLIFE 
HABITAT, LIVESTOCK FORAGE, RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES, WILD 
HORSE AND BURRO HABITAT, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, ETC.; 

-» ACCELERATE RESTORATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC 
RANGELANDS TO PROPERLY FUNCTIONING CONDITION, WHERE 
APPROPRIATE; 

^ PROVIDE FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE WESTERN LIVESTOCK 
INDUSTRY AND COMMUNITIES THAT ARE DEPENDENT UPON 
PRODUCTIVE, HEALTHY RANGELANDS; and 

-» ENSURE THAT BLM LAND USERS AND STAKEHOLDERS HAVE A 
MEANINGFUL VOICE IN ESTABLISHING POLICY AND MANAGING BLM 



Ecological processes such as energy flow, hydrologic cycle and nutrient cycle, 
while important, cannot be practically measured in the field on vast areas managed by BLM. 
Ecological processes are addressed through indicators in other Standards (such as upland 
watersheds) . These indicators can be measured or observed to determine if the hydrologic 
cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flows are functioning properly. For example, the amount of 
yearly vegetative production (measurable) that is left to turn in to litter (measurable) that in 
turn becomes soil organic matter (difficult to measure) are all indicators. Production and litter 
have been selected as indicators; soil organic matter was not although it may, in practice, be 
used for special situations. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL E N V I R O N M E N TA I. IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.6 



APPENDIX 3 » STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



RANGELANDS, 



STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 

STANDARDS are descriptions of the desired condition of the biological and 
physical components and characteristics of ranqelands . Standards: 

- are measurable and attainable; 

- comply with various Federal and State statutes, policies, and directives 
applicable to BLM rangelands; and 

- establish goals for resource condition and parameters for management 
decisions. 

Indicators are features of an ecosystem that can be measured or obsen/ed in 
order to gain an understanding of the relative condition of a particular landscape or 
portion of a landscape. Indicators will be used by the rangeland manager to 
determine if Standards are being met. The indicators proposed for use are commonly 
accepted and used by members of the rangeland management profession in 
monitoring rangelands. Methods and techniques for evaluating these indicators are 
also commonly available. In using these terms, it should be recognized that not every 
indicator applies equally to every acre of land or to every ecological site. Additional 
indicators not listed below may need to be developed for some rangelands depending 
upon local conditions. 

Similarly, because of natural variability, extreme degradation, or unusual 
management objectives, discretion will be used in applying Standards. Judgements 
about whether a site is meeting or failing to meet a Standard must be tempered by a 
knowledge of the site's potential. Examples of this are thousands of acres of the 
Great Basin in western Utah where native perennial grass species have been replaced 
by cheatgrass, an annual exotic species. It will be difficult and expensive to return all 
those areas to their natural potential because they have been greatly altered. It may 
not even be feasible to restore such areas from such an altered state to a state similar 
to "natural" conditions. 

Site potential is determined by soil, geology, geomorphology, climate, and 
landform. Standards must be applied with an understanding of the potential of the 
particular site in question as different sites have differing potentials. 

GUIDELINES are management approaches, methods, and practices that are 
intended to achieve a standard . Guidelines: 

- typically identify and prescribe methods of influencing or controlling specific 
public land uses; 

- are developed and applied consistent with the desired condition and within site 



DIXIE RESOURCC AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.7 



APPENDIX 3 ' STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



capability; and 
- may be adjusted over time. 

It should be understood that these Standards and Guidelines are to be applied 
in making specific grazing management decisions. However, it should also be 
understood that they are considered the minimum conditions to be achieved. 
Flexibility must be used in applying these policy statements because ecosystem 
components vary from place to place and ecological interactions may be different. 

Standards and Guidelines for use on BLM Land in Utah are described in the 
following pages. Standards and Guidelines, once approved by the Secretary of the 
Interior, will be implemented through subsequent Resource Management Plans 
(RMPs) and other decisions by BLM officials involving matters related to management 
of grazing. Where applicable, the statewide Guidelines may be adopted as terms and 
conditions for grazing permits and leases. Additional Guidelines may be identified 
and implemented through subsequent Resource Management Plans and activity plans 
to address local situations not dealt with by the statewide Guidelines. 



STANDARDS for RANGELAND HEALTE 

Standard 1 . UPLAND SOILS EXHIBIT PERMEABILITY AND INFILTRATION RATES 
THAT SUSTAIN OR IMPROVE SITE PRODUCTIVITY, CONSIDERING THE SOIL 
TYPE, CLIMATE, AND LANDFORM. 

As indicated by: 
a.) Sufficient cover and litter to protect the soil surface from excessive water 
and wind erosion, promote infiltration, detain surface flow, and retard soil 
moisture loss by evaporation. 

b.) The absence of indicators of excessive erosion such as rills, soil pedestals, 
and actively eroding gullies. 

c.) The appropriate amount, type, and distribution of vegetation reflecting the 
presence of (1) the Desired Plant Community (DPC), where identified in a land 
use plan conforming to these Standards, or (2) where the DPC is not identified, 
a community that equally sustains the desired level of productivity and properly 
functioning ecological conditions. 

Standard 2. RIPARIAN AND WETLAND AREAS ARE IN PROPERLY FUNCTIONING 
CONDITION. STREAM CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY AND FUNCTIONS ARE 
APPROPRIATE TO SOIL TYPE, CLIMATE AND LANDFORM. 

As indicated by. 
a.) Streambank vegetation consisting of, or showing a trend toward, species 
with root masses capable of withstanding high streamflow events. Vegetative 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.8 



APPENDIX 3 ' STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



cover adequate to protect stream banks and dissipate streamflow energy 
associated with high-water flows, protect against accelerated erosion, capture 
sediment, and provide for groundwater recharge. 

b.) Vegetation reflecting: Desired Plant Community, maintenance of riparian 
and wetland soil moisture characteristics, diverse age structure and 
composition, high vigor, large woody debris when site potential allows, and 
providing food, cover, and other habitat needs for dependent animal species. 

c.) Revegetating point bars; lateral stream movement associated with natural 
sinuosity; channel width, depth, pool frequency and roughness appropriate to 
landscape position. 

d.) Active floodplain. 

Standard 3. DESIRED SPECIES, INCLUDING NATIVE, THREATENED 
ENDANGERED, AND SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES, ARE MAINTAINED AT A LEVEL 
APPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE AND SPECIES INVOLVED. 

As indicated by. 
a.) Frequency, diversity, density, age classes, and productivity of desired native 
species necessary to ensure reproductive capability and survival. 

b.) Habitats connected at a level to enhance species survival. 

c.) Native species re-occupy habitat niches and voids caused by disturbances 
unless management objectives call for introduction or maintenance of non- 
native species. 

d.) Habitats for threatened, endangered, and special-status species managed to 
provide for recovery and move species toward de-listing. 

e.) Appropriate amount, type, and distribution of vegetation reflecting the 
presence of (1) the Desired Plant Community, where identified in a land use 
plan conforming to these Standards, or (2) where the DPC is not identified a 
community that equally sustains the desired level of productivity and properly 
functioning ecological processes. 

Standard 4. BLM WILL APPLY AND COMPLY WITH WATER QUALITY 
STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE OF UTAH (R.317-2) AND THE 
FEDERAL CLEAN WATER AND SAFE DRINKING WATER ACTS. ACTIVITIES ON 
BLM LANDS WILL FULLY SUPPORT THE DESIGNATED BENEFICIAL USES 
DESCRIBED IN THE UTAH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (R.317-2) FOR 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.9 



APPENDIX 3 ' STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER. ' 

As indicated by. 

a) Measurement of nutrient loads, total dissolved solids, chemical constituents, 
fecal conform, water temperature and other water quality parameters. 

b) Macro invertebrate communities that indicate water quality meets aquatic 
objectives. 



GUIDELINES for GRAZING MANAGEMENT 

1 . Grazing management practices will be implemented that: 

a) Maintain sufficient residual vegetation and litter on both upland and riparian 
sites to protect the soil from wind and water erosion and support ecological 
functions; 

b) Promote attainment or maintenance of proper functioning condition 
riparian/wetland areas, appropriate stream channel morphology, desired soil 
permeability and infiltration, and appropriate soil conditions and kinds and 
amounts of plants and animals to support the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle 
and energy flow. 

c) Meet the physiological requirements of desired plants and facilitate 
reproduction and maintenance of desired plants to the extent natural conditions 
allow; 

d) Maintain viable and diverse populations of plants and animals appropriate 
for the site; 

e) Provide or improve, within the limits of site potentials, habitat for Threatened 
or Endangered species; 

f) Avoid grazing management conflicts with other species that have the potential 
of becoming protected or special status species; 

g) Encourage innovation, experimentation and the ultimate development of 
alternative to improve rangeland management practices; and 

h) Give priority to rangeland improvement projects and land treatments that 



BLM will continue to coordinate monitoring water quality activities with other Federal, 
State and technical agencies. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3. 10 



APPENDIX 3 ' STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



offer the best opportunity for achieving the Standards. 

2. Any spring and seep developments will be designed and constructed to protect 
ecological process and functions and improve livestock, wild horse and wildlife 
distribution. 

3. New rangeland projects for grazing will be constructed in a manner consistent with 
the Standards. Considering economic circumstances and site limitations, existing 
rangeland projects and facilities that conflict with the achievement or maintenance of 
the Standards will be relocated and/or modified. 

4. Livestock salt blocks and other nutritional supplements will be located away from 
riparian/wetland areas or other permanently located, or other natural water sources. It 
is recommended that the locations of these supplements be moved every year. 

5. The use and perpetuation of native species will be emphasized. However, when 
restoring or rehabilitating disturbed or degraded rangelands non-intrusive, non-native 
plant species are appropriate for use where native species (a) are not available, (b) 
are not economically feasible, (c) can not achieve ecological objectives as well as non- 
native species, and/or (d) cannot compete with already established non-native 
species. 

6. When rangeland manipulations are necessary, the best management practices, 
including biological processes, fire and intensive grazing, will be utilized prior to the 
use of chemical or mechanical manipulations. 

7. When establishing grazing practices and rangeland improvements, the quality of 
the outdoor recreation experience is to be considered. Aesthetic and scenic values, 
water, campsites and opportunities for solitude are among those considerations. 

8. Feeding of hay and other harvested forage (which does not refer to miscellaneous 
salt, protein, and other supplements), for the purpose of substituting for inadequate 
natural forage will not be conducted on BLM lands other than in (a) emergency 
situations where no other resource exists and animal survival is in jeopardy, or (b) 
situations where the Authorized Officer determines such a practice will assist in 
meeting a standard or attaining a management objective. 

9. In order to eliminate, minimize, or limit the spread of noxious weeds, (a) only hay 
cubes, hay pellets, or certified weed-free hay will be fed on BLM lands, and (b) 
reasonable adjustments in grazing methods, methods of transport, and animal 
husbandry practices will be applied. 

10. To avoid contamination of water sources and inadvertent damage to non-target 
species, aerial application of pesticides will not be allowed within 100 feet of a 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.11 



APPENDIX 3 • STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



riparian/wetland area unless the product is registered for such use by EPA. 

11 . On rangeiands where a standard is not being met, and conditions are moving 
toward meeting the standard, grazing may be allowed to continue. On lands where a 
standard is not being met, conditions are not improving toward meeting the standard 
or other management objectives, and livestock grazing is deemed responsible, 
administrative action with regard to livestock will be taken by the Authorized Officer 
pursuant to CFR 4180.2(c). 

12. Where it can be determined that more than one kind of grazing animal is 
responsible for failure to achieve a standard, and adjustments in management are 
required, those adjustments will be made to each kind of animal, based on 
interagency cooperation as needed, in proportion to their degree of responsibility. 

13. Rangeiands that have been burned, reseeded or otherwise treated to alter 
vegetative composition will be closed to livestock grazing as follows: (1) burned 
rangeiands, whether by wildfire or prescribed burning, will be ungrazed for a minimum 
of one complete growing season following the burn; and (2) rangeiands that have 
been reseeded or othenwise chemically or mechanically treated will be ungrazed for a 
minimum of two complete growing seasons following treatment. 

14. Conversions in kind of livestock (such as from sheep to cattle) will be analyzed in 
light of Rangeland Health Standards. Where such conversions are not adverse to 
achieving a standard, or they are not in conflict with land BLM use plans, the 
conversion will be allowed. 



MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT 

The determination of whether or not a particular grazing unit, pasture or 
allotment is meeting a Standard will be made by the Authorized Officer based on 
rangeland assessments and monitoring. 

Monitoring the indicators will be in the form of recorded data from study sites or 
transects. It may be supplemented by visual observations and other data by BLM or 
other agency personnel, ranchers, interested public, wildlife agency personnel, or 
other resource data. 

Assessments are the interpretation of data, observations, and related research 
findings. Assessments are the usual basis for prescribing grazing adjustments or 
practices. In some cases, such as with threatened or endangered species. Section 7 
consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species 
Act will occur. In all cases, conformance with Standards and Guidelines is a local 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3. 12 



APPENDIX 3 » STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



decision based on local circumstances involving a collaborative process with affected 
interests. 

Should an assessment determine that an allotment is not meeting a standard, 
the next step is to determine the cause of failing to meet the Standard. If that 
determination reveals that grazing is involved or partially responsible, the Authorized 
Officer, with involvement of the interested parties, will prescribe actions that ensure 
progress toward meeting the Standard. Those actions may be a part of an activity 
plan, a coordinated management plan, or an administrative decision. Corrective 
management actions will be based on actual on-the-ground data and conditions. 

Appendix A contains additional information about specific indicators to be 
monitored. 



CONSULTATION, COORDINATION and PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

Public involvement in developing these Standards for Rangeland Health and 
Guidelines for Grazing Management for BLM Lands in Utah was obtained through 
individual consultation, public meetings, and public mailings. 

The following entities were consulted by the Rangeland Health Team Leader 
prior to preparation of the Draft S&Gs: 

Utah Department of Natural Resources 

Utah Department of Agriculture 

Utah State University (Department of Natural Resources) 

Utah Cattleman's Association 

Utah Wilderness Society 

Southern Utah Wilderness Association 

Sierra Club 

Audubon Society 

Utah Woolgrowers 

Utah Farm Bureau 

Forest Service, USDA 

National Resource Conservation Service, USDA 

The Nature Conservancy 

BLM Utah formed a Rangeland Health Team, consisting of a variety of 
specialists from BLM, Forest Service, State of Utah, Utah State University, and the 
National Resource Conservation Service. Members of the Team consulted with peers 
within and outside their respective offices. The Team met on three occasions to 
prepare the Preliminary Draft and Draft documents as well as serving as advisors to 
the Utah BLM Advisory Council. 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PIAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAl IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.13 



APPENDIX 3 ' STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



Consultation found that the level of public interest was relatively low. It also 
found these concerns: (1) the eventual Standards and Guidelines must be 
realistic and implementable, (2) they must be based on good science, (3) they should 
address social and economic concerns, (4) Standards must be measurable, (5) 
decisions concerning Standards and Guidelines must involve input from interested 
parties, (6) all forms of grazing should be dealt with, not just livestock, and (7) the 
Utah Standards and Guidelines must be flexible enough to deal with a wide variety of 
local situations. 

The Draft document was mailed to the public in August 1996 for review and 
comment, opening a 60 day comment period. Approximately 1950 Draft documents 
were mailed with about 1780 of those going to BLM grazing permittees. The 
remainder went to county commissions, State and Federal agencies. Native American 
tribes and nations, environmental groups, and numerous interested individuals. A total 
of 39 responses was received from those sources. A list of people and entities 
receiving the Draft can be obtained from the Utah BLM State Office. 

Public meetings to provide information and receive public comments were held 
in Salt Lake City, Brigham City, Moab, Roosevelt, Richfield and Cedar City during the 
week of September 9. Open houses were held at BLM offices during the same time 
in Vernal and Moab. In total, 52 people attended those meetings and open houses. 
Sixteen people provided formal comments. 

The Utah BLM Resource Advisory Council (RAC) met seven times to consider 
S&Gs. The first four meetings were orientation and education meetings: Jan. 1 9 and 
Feb. 16 in a classroom setting with instructors from agencies and universities, and 
March 22 and 23 and May 8, 9 and 10 on field trips to gain hands-on experience. 
The RAC met on June 13 and 14, and again on July 15 to prepare the Draft. It met 
again to consider public comments on the Draft and prepared the Final on Nov 1 
1996. 

BLM's responses to the public comments received on the Draft document are 
contained in the section titled "Public Comments and Responses". 

This Final version of Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 
Grazing Management on BLM Lands has been submitted to the Governor of the State 
of Utah for his consistency review pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act. It is also subject to public protest during the period provided by 
BLM. 



10 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3. 14 



APPENDIX 3 > STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 

Public comments have been addressed in the following section if they relate to 
inaccuracies in interpreting BLM policy and regulation, contain suggestions for more 
desirable scientific applications and methodologies, or contain substantive 
disagreements or interpretations. 

1 . Comment: The Draft S&Gs document does not comply with the intent of BLhA grazing 
regulations to emphasize native species in support of ecological function. It does not go far 
enough in giving preference to native plant species over introduced species. 

Response: Standard 3 states "Desired species, including native, threatened, 
endangered, and special-status species, are maintained at an appropriate level for the site 
and species involved." It is BLM's intent that native species will be favored over introduced 
species wherever possible; however, where native species cannot feasibly be maintained or 
reintroduced, compatible introduced species may be considered. Scientific literature supports 
this position. Many studies have shown the difficulty in reintroducing native species and the 
current scientific thinking now is that desirable, non-invasive introduced species can be utilized 
to support ecological function and provide a transitional ecosystem until native species can re- 
establish themselves. Several comments expressed concern with too much use of crested 
wheatgrass. BLM agrees that vast homogeneous stands of crested wheatgrass or any other 
species are not best, but may often be the only realistic alternative considering the site 
potential of much of the rangeland involved. BLM will continue to manage for vegetative 
diversity and assist in developing and securing more native or quasi-native plant species. 
Guideline 5, we believe, clearly states that intent as well. 

2. Comment: A number of comments expressed concern over BLtvl's intent to use qualitative 
and quantitative data for assessing rangeland health. Some favored using only quantitative 
("hard") data; others favored using more qualitative ("soft") data. 

Response: While these comments do not directly relate to Standards and Guidelines, 
they relate to a very critical part of assessing rangeland health. One reality of rangeland 
management today is that the BLM does not have the human and financial resources to 
collect the amount of "hard" data that may be required to make decisions. Another reality is 
that there is significant controversy over the suitability of traditional monitoring techniques for 
making management decisions. Combining those two concems with the increasingly 
important need to obtain more involvement from interested publics, BLM believes that a 
combination of qualitative and quantitative data applied through a consensus approach is the 
desirable course to choose. 

3. Comment: The BLM Draft S&Gs do not satisfy the regulatory requirement to address 
ecological functions (energy, water, and nutrient cycles). 

Response: This topic has been reviewed thoroughly by the Resource Advisory 
Council, the Rangeland fHealth Team, and during consultation with scientific authorities. That 
deliberation resulted in the conclusion that these basic ecological functions cannot practically 

11 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3. 15 



APPENDIX 3 • STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



be monitored directly in field on a scale necessary to assess millions of acres of BLM Lands. 
Tfie Standards and Guidelines were developed with the intent that the functioning of 
ecological processes is absolutely necessary to attaining rangeland health. The measurement 
of those functions would have to be rates, accomplished through measurements of other 
indicators such as plant cover (including cryptogamic crusts), litter, plant species composition, 
productivity, erosion rates, diversity of species and age classes, etc. 

4. Comment: The Draft section on Historic Perspective contains erroneous statements about 
the effect of herbivory on the evolution of rangelands in Utah. Some commented that grazing 
was insignificant in shaping plant communities while others believed that grazing was 
essential to maintaining healthy rangelands because Utah rangelands evolved with herbivory. 

Response: The Historic Perspective section was included in the Draft only for the 
purpose of providing the reader with a brief background of how grazing has been a very 
significant rangeland health factor for years. Since this section is not especially relevant to 
Standards and Guidelines content, it has been deleted from the Final. The question the public 
and BLM faces today is not whether grazing is essential for or detrimental to maintaining 
viable, healthy rangelands but rather what are the ecological "goalposts" and how is grazing to 
be managed to attain those goals. 

5. Comment: Can, or should there be limits or thresholds for indicators of rangeland health 
that BLM establishes and uses to determine if rangeland conditions are meeting or not 
meeting the Standard? Why aren't specific, measurable attributes such as stubble height 
included? There is an obvious lack of quantifiable indicators. 

Response: Acceptable levels and thresholds will be established for many indicators, 
but on a site specific basis. It was not deemed possible or desirable to attempt to establish 
specific thresholds, acceptable limits or ranges for all the indicators for all of the BLM Lands in 
Utah. For the most part, however, these thresholds are already established for the Water 
Quality and Riparian/Wetland Standards by the State of Utah (water quality) and the BLM 
Riparian Area Management - Process for Assessing Riparian Proper Functioning Condition 
(riparian/wetland). A mix of qualifiable and quantifiable thresholds or indicators for uplands 
soils/watersheds and plant and animal communities will need to be determined locally 
because of extreme variability between locations. Reference areas will be used, to the extent 
they are known or can be found, to establish indicator baselines for proper functioning 
condition for uplands and biotic communities. Since plant and animal populations are 
susceptible to land use activities and difficult to "standardize," the BLM, with assistance from 
other interested parties and agencies, will continue to identify Desired Plant Communities 
(compared to reference areas) and key animal species through land use plans and activity 
plans. 

6. Comment: The Draft Standards and Guidelines do not describe the monitoring techniques 
and protocol that BLf^ will use to determine if Standards are being met. 

Response: It is not the intent of this document to describe specific indicators that will 
be applied or specific monitoring techniques that will be employed. This document focuses on 
developing Standards and Guidelines. (See Response to Comment 5). Utah BLM will 



12 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.16 



APPENDIX 3 • STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



prepare a Standards and Guidelines Implementation Strategy or handbook for field instruction 
and public information. This document will explain how S&Gs will be implemented and 
monitored. Although monitoring is obviously critical to successfully meeting the Standards, 
BLM does not consider monitoring to be part of developing the S&Gs. BLM anticipates that 
this document will be finished by March 1997 and available for public information. Additional 
information about monitoring techniques can be found in Appendix A of this document. 

7. Comment: Several comments were received that questioned definitions of terms in the 
glossary, or suggested other terms should be defined. Some examples are the terms 
Rangeland Health, crypto-gamic crusts, sustainability, desired natural community, and viable. 

Response: The glossary has been reviewed and definitions added or changed as 
appropriate to conform with definitions currently accepted by the scientific community. 

8. Comment: The Standards for Rangeland Health should be applied to other uses and 
users of BLM Lands, such as recreation and mining. 

Response: BLM agrees with this statement and intends to develop Standards and 
Guidelines for other land uses later. First priority is given to Grazing Management because 
the Grazing Regulations of August 1995 require BLM to have them complete by February 
1997. 

9. Comment: The new regulations require that the Standards and Guidelines must address 
subsurface soil conditions, stream energy dissipation, sediment capture, groundwater 
recharge, stream bank stability, stream channel morphology and function, and kinds and 
amounts of soil organisms, plants, and animals to support ecological function. 

Response: These are important features and indicators of rangeland health. They 
are addressed in Standard 1 , Standard 2, Standard 3 and Guideline 1 . 

1 0. Comment: Footnote 1 (page 3) should be deleted because it implies the S&Gs are more 
valid (and more scientific) than the Fundamentals. Footnote 2 should also be eliminated 
because it illegally attempts to avoid regulatory requirements to address nutrient cycling and 
energy flow. 

Response: Footnote 1 has been deleted because BLM feels it was somewhat 
misleading and confusing. Footnote 2 remains (as footnote 1) because BLM feels it is an 
accurate explanation to the reader that ecological processes are, for practical purposes, 
difficult if not impossible to measure over vast acreage. BLM has attempted to satisfy the 
regulatory requirements by developing the Standards for upland soils and riparian areas to 
include indicators that will indirectly address ecological processes, such as allowing sufficient 
residual vegetation and litter to support ecological function and providing for proper infiltration 
and permeability. We agree that, if possible, it would be desirable to monitor nutrient and 
energy cycles but the technology and capability is not available to do that on a large scale. 
By definition, a Standard must be measurable and that is the difficulty in developing a 
Standard for ecological functions. 



13 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.17 



APPENDIX 3 » STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



1 1 . Comment: The fact that indicators are "commonly accepted" by the rangeland 
management profession is not the full test for acceptable indicators. The measures of wildlife 
biologists, ornithologists, herpetologists, conservation biologists, mycologists, and ecologists, 
to name a few, are equally relevant under BLM's new ecosystem management focus for range 
management. 

Response: Wildlife biologists, ecologists, soils specialists, water quality specialists 
and other specialists were consulted with and involved in preparing the S&Gs. BLM considers 
"rangeland managers" to be inclusive of the specialists mentioned above. A wide variety of 
ecological specialists need to be involved in making management decisions. Please refer to 
the List of Preparers in this document. 

12. Comment: It is incorrect to state that the purpose of the S&Gs is to "provide guidance ... 
of all forms of grazing on public lands in Utah." The S&Gs are solely to guide livestock 
grazing management. 

Response: BLI^ Utah has broadened the scope of the August 1995 Grazing 
Administration Regulations which states that the fundamentals and standards and guidelines 
are limited to livestock grazing administration. The Federal Land Policy and IVIanagement Act 
and BLf^l's regulations for planning give the State Director authority to develop rules and 
guidance for public land planning. The Utah State Director is employing that authority to 
broaden Standards and Guidelines to apply to all fomis of grazing. This, we believe, is a very 
realistic and impartial approach to dealing with rangeland health because it allows BLf^ to 
deal with any grazing use that is detrimental to rangeland health. 

1 3. Comment: We urge you to improve the chances of standardizing interpretations of the 
Standards and Guidelines in the field ... a wide variety of interpretations could largely 
supplant this effort and defeat its purpose. Consistency in interpretation is key to success of 
this effort. 

Response: BLM agrees that consistency is difficult yet critical to success. Managing 
rangeland resources requires a blend of science and art, and is not always exact. 
Nonetheless, BLM intends to strive for consistency by providing field direction (Implementation 
Strategy) and to continue to utilize the best science available. Standards and Guidelines will 
be implemented by establishing management objectives that contain quantitative and 
qualitative benchmarks or targets for numerous indicators that are applicable to a given site. 
Those objectives will be developed and monitored in a multi-disciplinary and public manner. 

1 4. Comment: The guideline referring to "weed free hay" should be changed to read "weed 
seed free hay. " Weeds will not hurt ranges if they are not seeded out. 

Response: The term "weed free hay" refers to hay that has been inspected in the 
field and certified by an inspector of the Utah Department of Agriculture as being free of 
weeds. The guideline directs that only such inspected and certified hay may be brought onto 
BLM Lands. 

1 5. Comment: Where a standard is being exceeded, can the permittee expect to receive a 

14 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3. 18 



APPENDIX 3 » STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



proportional increase in AUMs? It seems fair to us that if a penalty is to be imposed for 
failure to meet the Standards, then a reward should be offered for exceeding the Standard. 

Response: BLM currently has no provision for rewarding cooperators who assist in 
meeting or exceeding a Standard, other than operational flexibility and increased tenure. 
However, we believe that incentives need to be considered in any cooperative management 
plan. 

1 6. Comment: It is unlikely that Indicator d. of Standard 1 will ever be used and should be 
deleted. What is currently done and is measurable is the plant cover or biomass. It is then 
assumed that if plant cover is maintained, there is an appropriate amount of organic matter 
incorporated into the soil. 

Response: Indicator d. has been deleted because the Resource Advisory Council and 
BLM agree that soil organic matter will not routinely be monitored. 

1 7. Comment: BLM's intentions of promoting sustainable and properly functioning rangeland 
ecosystems may in some cases conflict with the BLIP'S intention of providing for the 
sustainability of the westem livestock industry and communities. The document is not clear 
on how such potential conflicts will be resolved. 

Response: BLM's view is that the sectors of the westem livestock industry that are 
dependent upon public lands can only be sustained on a long-term basis as long as grazing is 
in balance with the rangeland's ability to "produce forage. As the Final S&Gs document states, 
it is BLM's intent to promote healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystems that produce a wide 
range of public values such as wildlife habitat, clean water, livestock forage, recreational 
opportunities, etc. Sustaining the integrity and proper functioning of ecosystems is BLM's 
primary concern; producing goods, services, and public values from those ecosystems is 
secondary. 

1 8. Comment: Several comments addressed the Guideline for placing salt a specified 
distance from water. Some favored a certain distance (i.e., 1/4 mile), others opposed it. 
Some comments were concerned about creating numerous trampled areas by requiring 
livestock permittees to move salt/supplement locations every year. 

Response: The Guideline has been reworded to stress that although there is not 
minimum distance required, salt and other nutritional supplements will be located away from 
riparian and other permanent water sources. Because of concem for creating additional 
disturted areas by moving supplements every year, that requirement was deleted. It was also 
determined that because rangeland conditions are so variable it may be unworkable to require 
a minimum of 1/4 mile. However, it is BLM's position that supplements be located so that 
they minimize impact to riparian/wetland areas and areas adjacent to those supplements. 

1 9. Comment: A definition of sustainability is needed. 

Response: A definition has been included in the glossary. 



15 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.19 



APPENDIX 3 ' STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



20. Comment: The document states that "conformance with S&G's is a local decision based 
on local circumstances involving a collaborative process with affected interests. " We are not 
sure what the "affected interests" are and the term needs to be defined in the glossary. 

Response: BLM's intent is to mal<e resource decisions with the assistance and benefit 
of thinl<ing from ail parties that are interested in that decision. No definition is offered for 
"affected interests" because decision-making for BLM Lands is a public process open to 
anyone. 

21. Comment: Guideline 10 states that aerial application of pesticides will not be allowed 
within 100 feet of a riparian/wetland area unless the product is registered for such use by 
EPA. How will this be controlled and monitored? 

Response; Aerial application of pesticides has become an uncommon practice but is 
still utilized to some extent. Aerial application is closely monitored by observing weather 
conditions, drift, handling procedures, and extent of coverage to avoid introducing chemicals 
into non-target areas. This is standard procedure on BLM Lands. 

22. Comment: There should be an "action" section that describes what will happen when 
Standards are not being met or when "significant" progress in meeting the Standards is not 
occurring. 

Response: The monitoring and assessment section of this document briefly describes 
that the Authorized Officer will take corrective actions to ensure progress toward meeting the 
Standard. Also, refer to 43 CFR 41 80.2 which requires action by the Authorized Officer before 
the beginning of the next grazing season upon determining that grazing is a factor in failing to 
achieve the Standards and conform with the Guidelines. Also, see Response to Comment 6. 

23. Comment: Each Standard should have its own Guidelines. 

Response: An eariier version of this Draft attempted to do this. It was found to be 
very redundant and confusing. 

24. Comment The Standards and Guidelines do not address the effect of grazing and 
grazing management activities on cultural resources. 

Response: BLM acknowledges that some cultural resources could and are affected 
by grazing and grazing related activities. Cultural values, such as sacred sites and herbs and 
medicines could be considered under Standards and Guidelines since they are components of 
the natural ecosystem. However, they were omitted because BLM already has clear direction 
to identify and avoid adverse impact to such values by any land use activity, including grazing. 

25. Comment: In many cases, activities which impact protected or special status species 
have nothing to do with grazing management. Grazing should not be impacted unless it is 
clearly documented that grazing practices are causing impacts to the species. 

Response: BLM agrees. The process for evaluating the effect of grazing on a 

16 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.20 



APPENDIX 3 ' STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



Standard involves determining why the Standard Is not being met, and if grazing is a factor in 
failing to meet the Standard. 

26. Comment: The requirement to use only certified weed free fiay on BLM Land is anottier 
unfunded Federal mandate, wfiich will increase costs to operators unnecessarily. 

Response: Certified weed free hay is more expensive than other hay and will raise 
the cost of feeding animals, but it is a necessary step to be taken to reduce the rate of 
noxious weeds spread. However, feeding hay to permitted livestock on BLM Land is not 
allowed except in emergency conditions as stated in Guideline 9. Some hay is fed to saddle 
stock, for example, but this is a very minor amount and will have to be certified weed free. 
The overall increase in costs to livestock operators will be negligible. 

27. Comment: The current standard in Utah is that a mechanically treated area will remain 
ungrazed for only one season. Doubling the time will create problems for operators, as well 
as additional stress on other allotment areas. 

Response: There may be some disagreement over this Guideline, but scientific 
literature supports removing grazing for two growing seasons . This does not mean 2 years . 
Treated areas may often be grazed after the second growing season, which is often less than 
2 years. 

28. Comment: I think it is very realistic to state, based on 40 years of research, that the best 
option we have for restoration of depleted rangelands to native species will be using 
introduced species as a forerunner to native grass establishment. What a terrible defeat it will 
be for soil consen/ation and future biodiversity on sensitive disturbed BLM Lands, if this 
management tool is removed or limited in its scope of use. 

Response: The subject of introduced vs. native species is frequently debated and 
difficult to resolve. The Resource Advisory Council and BLM heard many polarized opinions 
on this subject and discussed it thoroughly. The Standards and Guidelines are intended to be 
implemented in a way that allows use of and management for both classes of plants, with 
preference given to natives. See revised Guideline 5. 

29. Comment: Guideline 9 discusses feed as a source of noxious weeds, but none of the 
Guidelines address vehicle routes and other human intrusions as an invasion path for noxious 
weeds. 

Response: The spread of noxious weeds by vehicles is a significant and complex 
problem. Most vehicles on BLM Lands are recreational, and would not fall under these 
Standards and Guidelines. BLM realizes vehicular travel is a weed problem, but ensuring that 
weeds are not spread by vehicles, whether recreational or livestock related, is a major 
challenge. BLM has taken steps to eliminate weed transport by its own vehicles and 
machinery. 

30. Comment: At whose expense will improvements for livestock be constructed, relocated 
or modified? (Guideline 3.) 



17 



DIXIE RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

A3.21 



APPENDIX 3 ' STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR GRAZING MANAGEMENT FOR BLM LANDS IN UTAH 



Response: These costs will be bome by the livestock operator, BLM and other 
cooperators in proportion to their ownership or investment. 

31 . Comment: We do not agree with the proposed Guidelines because they allow grazing to 
continue in areas where the Standards are not being met. 

Response: That is correct. However, BLM's grazing regulations state that some fomn 
of corrective action must be taken prior to the beginning of the next grazing season should a 
determination be made that livestock grazing is a factor in failing to meet the Standard. 
Corrective action may involve changing seasons of use, numbers or class of livestock, or 
complete removal. 

32. Comment: The importance of cryptogamic crusts in Colorado Plateau ecosystems 
should be explicitly recognized. Erosion rates should be monitored. 

Response: These indicators, while referred to indirectly under Standard 1 , will be 
identified in the Implementation Strategy or handbook that is under development. BLM agrees 
these are important indicators. 

33. Comment: These Guidelines offer exemptions from achieving Standards under certain 
conditions based on economic considerations. The regulations do not offer